are obsessed withdymented hoaxes, crazy witch hunts and deranged partisan crusades. >> my switch in attitude purely nonpartisan. >> consumed with partisan rage. >> iowa caucuses, folks, iowa caucuses are this next monday 50e6 evening. >> deranged partisan crusades. >> democratic caucusgoers, will they be supporting vice president biden at this point? >> we have a great party, the republican party. they know what is going on. >> will they be support positin president biden? kind of subtle, huh? >> they know what's going on. >> they are smearing me to try to stop me and they know if i'm the nominee, i'm going to beat donald trump like a drum. >> good morning. i'm ali velshi. and here is what is happening on

your saturday. it was by far the most important vote in the impeachment trial of president trump. the senate last night voted against allowing additional documents and witnesses to be called. the vote was nearly along partly lines. 51-49. with only republicans mitt romney and susan collins breaking and voting for witnesses. this is the first time in u.s. history that no witnesses will be called in a senate impeachment trial. afterwards chuck schumer addressed the situation. >> to not allow a witness, a document, no witnesses, no documents, in an impeachment trial is a perfity, a grand 2r57b8gd tragedy. america will remember this day unfortunately where the senate did not live up to its responsibilities, where the senate turned away from truth

and went along with a sham trial. if the president is acquitted with no witnesses, no documents, the acquittal will have no value. >> the democrats call for witnesses peaked last week after excerpts from a yet to be published book by ebojohn bolto were reported on by the "new york times." in it bolton writes that trump told him in late august that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to ukraine until officials there committed to helping with investigations into democrats including the bidens. not only that, but just hours before yesterday's vote, the "times" reported that trump actually directed bolton to help with his ukraine pressure campaign more than two months before he asked ukraine's president to open those investigations. >> it is a little bit in this sense like watergate.

every little -- every week new evidence comes out that is further condemning of the president. >> the senate in its history has had 15 different impeachment trials. in every single trial, there were witnesses. every single trial. why should this president be treated differently, held to a lower standard? >> my goodness, i don't know how you finish this without having witnesses. i don't know how you make an informed decision without having witnesses. >> i believe the truth will eventually come out. the truth. the truth will eventually come out. every republican who voted to hide the truth in an impeachment trial of the president will have to answer for it. >> yesterday the attorney for indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas sent a letter to majority leader mcconnell

detailing exactly what his client would say if he were to be called as a witness to testify, including all the steps that parnas took in connection with the ukraine scream, quote, at the direction of mr. giuliani on behalf of the president, end quote. in addition, park that is onas testify that all the following individuals were involved. president trump, vice president mike pence, secretary of state mike pompeo, then energy secretary rick perry, attorney general william barr, and get this, south carolina senator and trump super defender lindsey graham as well as former house intel committee chair devin nunes and his adviser derrick harvey. john solomon and attorneys joe digenova and victoria tensing as well as the pro trump america first super pac. no wonder the white house didn't want witnesses especially wol ton bolton as it seems that it would directly refute this defense by the trump team.

>> not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else. >> so here is where we stand now. on monday, along with the iowa caucuses, there will be four hours of closing arguments in the senate. on tuesday, senators will begin deliberations on the articles and donald trump will deliver his state of the union address. then on wednesday, more open deliberations and then, clear your calendar, for and third ever vote on the acquittal or removal of a president of the united states. make some choices about where you will be to watch or listen to it because your grandchildren will ask you about it one day. with me now from west palm beach, florida, hans nichols who is traveling with the president, geoff bennett is live on capitol hill, and here in new york, former federal prosecutor now

msnbc legal analyst glenn kirshner and senior washington news correspondent for wbur kimberly atkins who is also an msnbc contributor. good morning to all of you. hans, let's staurrt with you. there is push back from the white house on the idea that the president will not be acquitted, exonerated in his words, but acquitted until wednesday after he delivers the state of the union address on tuesday night, which many people were expecting to be his victory lap. >> reporter: the old plan had always been to be cleared, to maybe even have his acquittal before his interview that is on fox news ahead of the super bowl. and now it looks like that is all complicated. although the president and mitch mcconnell did have a conversation and he is well read into the timing of all of this. the president has decisions to make, one on tone and one on substance. on substance, he has to decide whether he will do a victory lap before the senate actually

acquits him, decides not to remove him from office. he has that interview with hannity at fox that will likely appear before the super bowl. that is going to be a decision for the president. and then the broader question is what tone does he strike at the state of the union. is it going to be vindictive, ag grieved, will he be attacking the very senate democrats who will be voting within 24 hours on his potential removal, likely acquittal from office? and just in general with the state of the union, most presidents use it as an opportunity to reset, to lay out the agenda. yes, talk about what they accomplished but it is usually a forward looking speech on what the agenda for 2020 will be. and there aren't a lot of obvious policy areas where there can be compromise between house democrats and the president. so i'll be interested to see whether or not the tone is domestic, conciliatory and whether or not he shifts to any foreign policy challenges that clearly a wait him in 2020.

>> and geoff bennett, you have been watching all of this? the senate for the last couple of weeks. what intrigue remains there? we expect on wednesday to be watching the vote in which the president of the united states is acquitted of the two articles of impeachment. but what will happen for the next few days at the senate? >> reporter: it is really just the machinations of raw politics. if there is any intrigue left, it is where do the democrats who represent red states, where do they fall on this issue. joe manchin of west virginia, doug jones of alabama, the only democrat who represents a state in the deep south. last night they told our team that they haven't made up their minds on where they stand on this issue of acquittal. and so the first time we'll get to hear any of these senators, you know, state their case will be on monday after the four hours of closing arguments. and then we will move to a

process of object deliberations. and this is one of the things that mitch mcconnell more or less had to agree to. we're told that there were some self-professed moderate republicans who wanted a parallel between the clinton process and what was going to happen in the trump process. the view from the white house, view from the sort of the trump wing of the senate republican party, to include ted cruz, josh holly, this is a clean win, let's get it over with. but they knew that democrats wouldn't allow for that. and the democrats really could have extended this process seemingly for as long as they wanted to by offering up amendment after amendment, each amendment having two hours of debate. so the resolution was that they would have this process that ends on wednesday after the state of the union address. so this wednesday 4:00 p.m. vote. i think that is when we'll see if there is really anything left, anymore surprises here. but as i stand here and talk to you, there are not 20 republicans of course who will join with the 45 democrats and

two independents who caucus with the democrats to get that magic number of 67 that would ultimately lead to president trump's removal. >> kimberly, there is something unsatisfying about this notwithstanding the fact that there are people in america who thought donald trump should be acquitted, people who thought that he should be quinkt convic. but anybody who thought that he should be convicted, that was wishful thinking about how that is going to go. that is a high bar, two did not thi -thirds of the senate. people believed it, but people who were engaged in wishful thinking. but the idea that there would be something that felt like a fair trial, why does that matter? >> it does matter. and look, you have members of the senate who are making this decision, biggest decision that they could make about removal of a president. you would think that there would be a full record. and this will be the first time in history that an impeachment trial was carried out with no witnesses being called in the senate. it is a historic moment. but on the other hand, you also

have republicans who are now saying, you know what, the democrats made their case. everything that they were alleging, we're taking as true. what we're saying is this still shouldn't lead to the removal of a president for whatever reason. senator alexander said it is because an election is coming. senator rubio says because of the impact on the country would be worse even if he has committed impeachable offenses in office. it is the republicans in the senate making the decision that regardless if the president did commit these offenses, regardless if the democrats made their case, they are choosing not to vote to remove. it is a remarkable moment. >> so glenn, for those of us who are not lawyer, kimberly just outlined three arguments that were used. i don't know how that would work in a court of law. but i would imagine that in a legal case these would be mitigating circumstances. right? the idea that we're ten months away from an election, let the people decide. the idea that if you remove this

president from office, maybe it is like removing a suspect on trial from their family, the damage that that would cause. but very few senators made the actual argument that lamar alexander did, acknowledging wrongdoing, saying that that wrongdoing is not sufficient for removal. >> yeah, and the collateral consequences that you described if he had been removed are inadmissible in court. there would be an objection and it would be sustained because that is not what is at issue. what is at issue is what did the president do, can it be proved and does it warrant removal from court. and i think even though the no witness vote is literally yesterday's news, it will echo and reverberate for decades. and i don't think that is hyperbole. because you have the national security adviser to the president describing for all the world that what he saw was a

drug deal and the american senators said the american people are not entitled to know what he meant by that. i mean, that no witness vote by 51 united states senators was designed do one thing only, it was cover up crimes by an american president. you know, we the people have a real interest in seeing what went on in that drug deal and the senators said tough luck, america, you don't get to see it. >> what do you get for not doing that? in other words, it would have taken a week. let's call it a week. and there were all sorts of senators carrying on about how we need to get this done, but there is actually no reason to get it done. senator after senator has said we're not doing a lot of business in the senator these days. they are not passing a whole lot of bills. why not hear from the person who was in the room where it happened? >> for the republicans in the senate, it is a political calculation. by calling these witnesses, by having someone testify,

potentially give devastating testimony against the president would cost them politically. you look at mitt romney who voted in favor of witnesses, cpac, the conservative organization that has their confab every year disinvited him publicly. he was the 2012 gop nominee, but that has now made him persona th nongrata. people didn't understand why he was there, they wanted to hear rick santorum and other conservatives. t ted cruz. and now this organization as well as everything within the republican party is trump's party and if you go against him, there will be political consequences to pay. that is the -- it is not a piece of evidence, but that is a huge factor. >> for those of us who hadn't watched impeachments closely, that is the takeaway that we have, that this is fundamentally a political process.

and thanks to both of you. please stick around. from impeachment to iowa, democratic candidates are making their final pitches to caucusgoers. and iowa is a small state whose delegates ultimately will not play a big role in the ultimate vote count for the person who gets the democratic nomination. but whoever wins gets super charged in the race going forward. and the race is much more open than it looks because of all the voters who haven't yet made up their minds. steve kornacki will join us to discuss where we stand and who needs that super charge to propel them to new hampshire, nevada and south carolina. you are watching msnbc. i've always loved seeing what's next. and i'm still going for my best,

even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. my money should work as hard as i do. that's why i use my freedom unlimited card every time i get gas.

give me a little slack! with freedom unlimited, you're always earning. i said i need some slack on pump three! 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.

iowa caucuses, folks. iowa caucuses are this next monday evening. and i'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the 00 i iowa caucus voters. will they be supporting vice president biden. >> as joni ernst reminded everyone there, monday is the iowa caucuses. recent history shows that for the democrats, the iowa caucuses despite being a sparsely populated and not particularly diverse state can be a solid bellwether for predicting the edge democratic nominee. you have to go back to 1992 for the last time the winner didn't

also win the nomination. and in that instance it was tom harken. but no matter the outcome, president trump is confident in his chances of taking the state again in the general election. >> everything out here, they love trump. and you should love trump with what i've done. so we're going to win the great state of iowa. and it is going to be a historic landslide. and if we don't win, your farms are going to hell, i can tell you right now. >> let's bring in steve kornacki. steve, we're almost there. how are they shaping up? >> two days to go and you mentioned, the power of iowa. hasn't missed this century in terms of getting the democratic nominee right. this is the average of all the polls. we've had a bunch of polls in the last week and i think going into monday night right now, there is probably going to be one or two more polls. so we'll see if there is any very late movement. but right now about 48 hours and change out, bernie sanders is

leading in most polls, biden in second close behind him. and then buttigieg, warren, and then klobuchar back there double double digits. but obviously low double digits. she would need a big late surge. but that is sort of the lay of the land. one of the biggest variables that we'll see monday night, we're always talking about caucuses, it takes a couple hours. you have go out to your local precinct, you really have to be committed. this isn't like a normal primary election. so that can affect the type of voters that show up. so one of the biggest variables has to do with age. check this out from the monday mouth poll last week. under 50 years old, in their elector electora electorate, they have biden in single digits. and they got sanders. nearly 50%. and flip it around, biden at nearly 40% and sanders single

digits. so this gets to the question, again, it is not like a normal election, not like a normal primary. you will have a little smaller turnout. and really is it going to be younger skewing, older skewing? that is a key variable. and you mentioned the boom rang effect -- slingshot effect. the boom rang comes back. this is the national poll. look, sanders has the lead by a point over biden. warren, bloomberg, buttigieg. it shows you the stakes. if sanders can win, his campaign thinks that they can really take off. if you are warren, buttigieg, you really got to win because you need to build outside of iowa and nationally. >> almost a five percent margin of error and a lot of people not yet decided. and if you are an iowa caucusgoer, you know that if your first choice person doesn't get 15% in that particular caucus that you are in, you need a second choice. so this is a place where polls indicate trend, but they don't

necessarily indicate outcome. >> yeah, and let me go back to that screen of the iowa average right now. all sorts of questions about the second choice because in every individual precinct, and there is like almost 1700 precincts in iowa, but in every individual one, if the candidate doesn't hit 15%, as you said, the supporters basically become free agents and they get a second chance at it. so the biden folks i know are looking at amy klobuchar saying there is a lot of support that could be up for grabs in a lot of precincts in the second ballot. does that go to biden. sanders folks are hoping that warren who has slipped a bit, that she starts missing the 15% thresholds in a bunch of precincts and that perhaps her supporters then go to sanders. and also by the way andrew i can't think yang is a wild car as well. >> and bloomberg stands to gain

from new rules with the democratic debates. >> yeah, the dnc, we've talked about it all year, they have the donor threshold, you have to wraz a certa wraz raise a earn is amount of money. and the debates coming up, next one in flef nefnevada, that i chiropractor tear i can't is poll based. you need double digits nationally.based. you need double digits nationally. you see bloomberg not quite at double digits, but he is knocking on the door. he is spending a ton of money not in the early states, and so the possibility here with this new threshold, bloomberg, self-funding, not taking donor, he can hit the polling threshold potentially and get on the stage without the donor threshold. you'd expect to see sander, biden. if you get a single delegate in iowa, you will get on the stage that way too. so there is a couple other ways to get on.

but yes, michael bloomberg whose whole strategy is super tuesday and beyond, he may well be there. >> and one of these days we'll talk about why we put the emphasis on iowa and new hampshire and other than super charging it, may not make the most sense. but that is another discussion for another morning. good to see you. steve kornacki. and you can catch steve right here today, he will be hosting an iowa caucus special which you don't want to miss 4:00 p.m. eastern. and be sure to join brian williams and rachel maddow who will break down all of the results coming in out 69 iowa caucuses, live coverage begins monday at 6:00 p.m. but first, make sure to tune in tonight to "politics nation" at 5:00 p.m., the reverend al sharpton sits down with mike bloomberg tonight at 5:00 right here on msnbc followed by joy reid. and i'll be back here again at 9:00 p.m. they had one job to try to

get to the truth. up next, how the u.s. senate may have just broken its institution in a single vote. >> this is a political process. this is not anything judicial about it. anything judicial about it something great from mr. clean.

stop struggling to clean tough messes with sprays. try clean freak! it has three times the cleaning power of the leading spray to dissolve kitchen grease on contact. and it's great for bathrooms! just keep pumping the power nozzle to release a continuous burst of mist and make quick work of big jobs. it even works on stainless steel. it cuts through 100% of dirt, grease and grime. available with easy-to-swap refills. to get three times the cleaning power, try clean freak from mr. clean.

than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. without asking your doctor about 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.

there have been a lot of complaints from both sides about how president trump's impeachment trial has played out. but one of the biggest complaints has been about whether this trial has been as rigorous or as thorough as it could have been. for facts sake, it wasn't. by some standards, it wasn't even a real trial. now, in fairness, a senate impeachment trial is different from any other trial you have witnessed or that i have watched on ylaw and order. despite being presided over by the chief justice, impeachment is essentially more of a political process than a strictly legal one. and the 100 senators are not only supposedly impartial jurors, they are also ultimately judges. they control the proceedings. a normal trial of his has a standard set of rules and procedures, senate trials do not. hence the huge debate over the rules at the start of the proceedings. now, the senate has held more

than a dozen impeachment trials over its 231 year his er direct most about judges whos appointed for life. so impeachment is the only way to remove them if they do nautsity things. until now, all of those trials have included witnesses. president trump andrew johnson's trial in 1868 had 41 witnesses. president bill clinton's trial in 1999 had a special prosecutor with a lot of evidence and three witnesses. president trump's had none. as for the federal judges, some of these trials had a large number of witnesses. 55 witnesses were at judge hastings' 1989 trial. 26 witnesses at judge portia's trial in 2010. and 21 at judge claiborne's trial in 1986. and 10 witnesses at judge walter nixon's trial in 1989. some republicans have suggested that the senate has no duty to

go beyond the testimony that was obtained by the house. but according to the "washington post," seven witnesses who testified in judge nixon's trial in 1989 had not testified before that in the house. 17 witnesses for judge portia's trial in 2010 had not testified before that in the house. 17 of the 53 current republican senators serving today took part in this trial and heard from these 17 witnesses who hadn't testified before that in the house. at the beginning of this trial, all 100 senators took an oath in which they swore to do impartial justice. but some republican senators made it clear well before the trial that they had no intention of upholding that promise. >> everything that i do during this i'm coordinating with the white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position

and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can. i'm not an impartial juroosh. this juror. there is a political process. the house made a partisan political decision to impeachment. and i would anticipate that we will have a largely partisan outcome in the senate. i'm not impartial about this at all. >> i'm clearly made up my mind. i'm not trying to hide the fact that i have disdain for the accusations and the process, so i don't need any witnesses. the president can make a request to call witnesses. they can make a request to call mike pence and pompeo and joe biden and hunter biden. i'm ready to vote on the underlying articles. i don't really need to hear a lot of witnesses. >> let's be clear, no one is actually above the law, not everyone t even the president. but the president's defense team made an argument that many legal

scholars say is absurd because he can't do anything wrong if he act in the public interests. this however is not a new argument. >> when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. >> i have an article 2 where i have the right do whatever i want a president. >> if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interests, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> now, if you are like me, not a lawyer, that is a head scratcher. the constitution says that the presidential be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. but if the president is acquitted as expected, the standard put ford by alan dershowitz from whom you just heard will stand as precedent for future presidents, that for matter what they do such as

seeking re-election help from a foreign government, it is okay. and congress can't do anything about it. appoint t a point the house managers made this week. >> if the senate fails to reject this theory, what would stop a president from withholding disaster aid funding from a u.s. city until that mayor endorses him? >> if this senate were to say that is acceptable, then precisely as was outlined in that question could take place all across america in the context of the next election and any election. grants allocated to cities or towns or municipalities across the country, but the president could say you're not going to get that money, mr. mayor, mrs. county executive, mrs. town supervisor, unless you endorse

me for re-election. >> impeachment was designed to prevent something like this. when we come back, we'll take a look at where the system failed and what it could mean for our very democracy. you're watching msnbc. what's going on? it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts.

my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. for a nasty cold, take dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. whoa! and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors. ahhhhhhhhhh! dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. the daytime, coughing, stuffy head,

vaporize your cold, medicine. during sunday's game tweet the tumsmoji and hashtag for every tumsworthy moment fumbles, touchdowns, eating spicy wings if it's got you feeling the burn, tweet that moment to win big with tums (tum tum tum tum tums) proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis... ...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,

or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. humira is proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage,... ...and clear skin in psa. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. the senate does not have a lot of work. constitutionally, its role is important but limited.

it is one of the few constitutionally mandated jobs is to hold a senate trial. it is a role in which it engaged for only the third time for the misdeeds of a president and the senate failed. it failed not because it will acquit a president, it hadn't done that yet, though it likely will. acquittal was always the most likely outcome. no, the failure in this trial was that it was no trial at all. and it was hardly fair. sadly, no one won this trial because the subject of it, the president of the united states, wanted and will claim that he got total exoneration. he won't. he will simply be acquitted. not innocent and not exonerated. the question now is where we go as a nation from here. our politics are broken. our institutions are damaged. our people are more polarized than at any other time during the revolutionary war or the civil war or the vietnam war.

in the face of a world full of adversaries, we are not strong. and we lack leadership to help us become strong again and unite in our common goals. some believe that trump's messaging going forward including in tuesday's state of the union will be critical in an effort to unite a clearly divided country. but if we've learned anything from trump, it is that he won't be humbled chastised for his being as in dealing with ukraine. instead, he will likely see his acquittal in the senate as a victory of sorts. >> you know, we're having probably the best years that we've ever had in the history of our country. and i just got impeached! can you believe these people? i got impeached. they impeached trump. it is a happy period because we call this impeachment-light. >> and while trump you views just the fourth presidential impeachment proceedings this u.s. history as a punch line to

his base, it will forever mark and stain his political legacy. the history books will read trump impeached by the house of representatives. would go on to be acquited in the senate. acquittal is a verdict that person is not guilty of a criminal charge. exoneration is defined as to absolve someone from blame for fault or wrongdoing especially after due consideration of the case. especially after due consideration of the case. something that arguably didn't happen in this trial with no documents and no witnesses, unlike any other impeachment trial in american history. trump, a political outlier, sees his ability to escape the ultimate punishment, his removal from office, as something to celebrate, much like he did followings release of the mueller report findings. >> there was no obstruction, none whatsoever. and it was a complete and total

exoneration. it is a shame that our country had to go through this. to be honest, it is a shame that your president has had to go through this. >> the leader of the free world painting himself as the victim. as for his use of the word exonerated, robert mueller said this when offering testimony before the house judiciary committee on july 24th, quote, the president was not excull pay theed for the acts that he allegedly committed. immediately after which trump said this -- >> i think robert mueller did a horrible job both today and with respect to the investigation. he didn't have the right to exonerate. you know, it very interesting. people mention exoneration. that was something where he totally folded. >> we now know that trump's famous phone call with the president of ukraine asking to dirt on joe biden in exchange

for aid came exactly one day after robert mueller's testimony on july 24th. the phone call was july 25th. over the past six months or so, house democrats have laid out their case, illustrating the back room dealings put forth by this president on his own behalf. but it wasn't enough. and donald trump will be emboldened to push the limits of his office moving forward. on tuesday when he speaks to the country during the state of the union, he could apologize. he could try and unite the country. or i could grow an afro. neither will happen. i will remain bald and he will remain a bald faced -- whatever. i don't have the dna to grow hair on my head and he some say doesn't have the dna to tell the truth. in 1974, under the microscope of impeachment, richard nixon had this to say -- >> i believe the time has come to bring that investigation and

the other investigations of this matter to an end. one year of watergate is enough. >> seven months and ten days after that, richard nixon resigned. as president he said i must put the interests of america first. i deeply regret any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. exactly ten months after donald trump's state of the union and the end of his impeachment trial, he, too, will deliver a speech on election night. we shall have to wait for history to tell us what that speech will sound like. speech will sound like

wow! that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.

and one gram of sugar. so ithat gives me cash backsome new on everything.uten that's ebates new name. rakuten, it gets me cash back at tons of stores and i just shop like normal. that's ebates. i've told you fifteen times, we've saved like five hundred dollars last year. rakuten is changing my life, i get cash back on electronics, travel, clothes. you're talking about ebates. look, if you use my referral code you get ten bucks, i get twenty five. this is a pretty good deal to me we should probably- sfx [blender] smoothies ready. awesome. ebates is now rakuten, sign up today and get cash back on everything you buy. i appreciate what makes each person unique. that's why i like liberty mutual. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.

almost done. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the united i liexplorer card. makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. 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.

you know what i believe about all this, it was a bunch of partisan [ bleep ] in the house, it continued in the senate. it will end wednesday. the president will getting a quitted and it will blow up in their face, that's what i think this is all about. >> 100 senators took an oath on january 16th promising to, quote, do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws. but 51 of those senators rejected witness testimony which could have included some answers from people like the president's former national security adviser john bolton. a new report from the "new york times" says that bolton's book

manuscript details the president's efforts to drenkts him to help prompt a ukranian investigation into the bidens. while 51 republicans voted against witnesses, some of them admit that house managers prove against the president. one of those people is florida senator marco rubio. even after voting no on witnesses, he said, quote, just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interests of the country to remove a president from office. joining me now is jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center and a professor of law at the george washington university law school and joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney, professor at the university of alabama law school and an msnbc contributor. welcome to both of you. jeff, let me start with you because you have written so many books about courts and legal issues in america. i think what america has had as a lesson in the last few weeks is that impeachment doesn't work

like a trial. i think we saw that on display in the last few days. >> we did. and if you look at history, you're right, ali, that impeachment has become so much more polarized than it used to be. in the johnson impeachment, seven republican senators joined democrats in voting to acquit because they thought that the evidence hadn't been fairly presented. in the clinton impeachment, five republicans joined the 45 democrats to acquit on one charge and 10 on the other because they thought the case hadn't been proved. here we're likely to see a party line vote, maybe one or two defections, and that just suggests that the founders' hope that in impeachment the senators would rise above their partisan interests and converge around the public interests is no longer the case. >> joyce, you were on with ari melber when he was having a conversation with alan dershowitz. i want to just play a little bit of that and get your comment on it. >> they impeached him for abuse

of power and obstruction of congress. had they impeached him for bribery, the issue would be very, very different. had they impeached him for extortion, the issue would be very different. >> so if they used those words you'd be fine with it? you'd be fine with it if they used those words? >> instead they impeached him for abuse of power. >> you'd be fine if they had used the "b" word? >> no, it's not a drafting issue because they had professor tribe on their side. if they had the evidence, they would have been obviously smart enough to allege bribery or extortion or any of these other things. they didn't have the evidence, they didn't have the votes on that. >> what's he talking about? >> yes, so this is, i think, a hypertechnical legal issue, but it's worth unpacking a little bit. the democrats were going to lose in professor dershowitz' assessment no matter how they handled this. the articles of impeachment, there are two of them. one is for abuse of presidential power, in essence, the other is for obstruction. inside of the abuse of power

article are allegations that looks a lot like a criminal indictment and it talks about crimes that in essence are bribery, but it's labeled with this abuse sort of a moniker. and we heard adam schiff explain that he did that because that was the top level crime. that was what they were looking at, high crimes and misdemeanors. had the democrats gone ahead and alleged bribery, i think we would be having hypertechnical legal arguments about what bribery means in america in 2020. there are some very distinct requirements that may or may not be met here. but the reality is, is that the sort of bribery that we're looking at for impeachment purposes is bribery as the founding fathers understood it in the late 1700s where we didn't have a codified criminal code with elements prosecutors had to prove. does the president's conduct rise to the level of bribery? well, let's just look at it. he told the ukrainian president if you want money, if you want a visit, you're going to have to do me a favor. it's bribery in substance and

impeachment should be about substance. >> jeff, there were a few arguments going back and forth with the president's team. one is the one that professor dershowitz put forward and said that these actions by the president are not impeachable. then you had lamar alexander and marco rubio saying maybe they were bad, but they weren't impeachable. and then there were other arguments put forward that the president is not subject to things that others would be subject to. it seemed to me to be an inconsistent approach. how did you review it? >> it was very much arguing in the alternative, as the lawyers say. but you're right that what will the precedent of this acquittal be? for johnson and clinton, his tore janua -- historians celebrated that it was not enough to remove from office. now the standard seems to be you do need an allegation of a technical crime in order to justify removal. we know from the other presidents that's not enough.

then we hear statements like marco rubio saying this is very serious, he did do it, but it doesn't meet the standard. so the fear of the democrats of course is that all the constraints are off. without a very, very serious technical crime, there's no possibility of removal. republicans counter that if this president were removed for this, then any president could be removed for political offenses. but i think it's fair to say that after this impeachment, it will be an extremely hard thing to remove any future president from office. so we may see lots of impeachments by the house if they're controlled by the opposite party and lots after kwitl -- of acquittals by the senate. >> jeff rosen is the president and ceo of the national constitution center. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor. thank you to both of you. the trial of the president may be all but over, but at what cost? when we come back, what the mass republican senate loyalty to trump says about his fervent supporters and its ratifications

for the 2020 presidential election. you are watching msnbc. tcng msnc n 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! (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. when i get my teeth cleaned, my hsomething like this. she cleans with something like this. it's got a round head. and it's got power. go pro with oral-b. power one on for oral-b's best clean ever. inspired by dentists. ...oral-b's round brush head surrounds each tooth... ...to remove more plaque along the gum line... for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. i'll only use the one that's round. oral-b. brush like a pro. yeah? who's peter? well sweetie, he's your great-great grandfather. here, does he look like me? yeah. your family's story is waiting to be shared.

at ancestry.com until i found out what itst it actually was.ed me.hared. 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. itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

we begin this saturday morning with the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. it's all but over, senators casting their votes 51-49 not to call any further witnesses nor to allow further evidence. the gop delivering a victory for trump, but at what cost? "the washington post" writing republican senators who voted

friday to suppress known but unexamined evidence of president trump's wrongdoing at his senate trial must have calculated that the wrath of a vindictive president is more dangerous than the sensible judgment of the american people who, polls showed, overwhelmly favored the summoning of witnesses. senate minority leader chuck schumer of new york voicing his displeasure with the proceedings. >> to not allow a witness, a document, no witnesses, no documents, in an impeachment trial is a perfity. it's a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the senate has ever overcome. america will remember this day, unfortunately, where the senate did not live up to the responsibilities, where the senate turned away from truth and went along with a sham trial. >> friday's no witness vote sets up a big week. monday will feature closing ar