the 51 senators who voted against witnesses represent 151 million people. the 49 senators who are on the losing side of that vote represent 170 million people. the senators who lost the vote in the senate yesterday represent 19 million more people than the senators who won that vote. in a "the new york times" editorial entitled "a dishonorable senate" "the times" said it brings the nation face to face to the reality that the senate has become nothing more than an arena for the most base and brutal and stupid politics. it would not muster the intuitional self-respect to even investigate. the senate may acquit mr. trump but it will not, it cannot,

exonerate him. mr. trump is the most corrupt president in modern times and a reality americans will be reminded of by investigations by the house which should immediately issue a subpoena to mr. bolton by a trio of cases in the supreme court seeking to reveal the shady finances and of course by the behavior of the man himself. leading off our discussion, from washington, dana milbank for "washington post," heidi pryzbla and sahill kapur and from madison, wisconsin, lisa grave, she is now the executive director for true north research. dana, i wanted to start with you because i know you were in the senate chamber, a fair amount. and you're reporting directly from the chamber and able to see everything that we could not see on the cameras and i have to say

i was relying on your accounts of attendance basically. who was in the room when. what did you notice about that? >> you know. it was appalling, lawrence, watching what was going on yesterday as they made these last pleas for witnesses for documents. there were at the peak 20 of the 53 republicans gone, missing entirely not there in the room. among those who were in the room, there were several chewing gum, rand paul was reading a magazine. mike lee was checking his smart watch. it really -- they were at that point no longer even sort of going through the ritual of pretending to honor their oath. i think that was to a large extert going on earlier in the trial, as well. first keeping the press very limited in the coverage they could do and then these elaborate efforts to have no documents or witnesses even though the truth was right there front of their eyes but it

really sort of ended in that way of we don't care, we won't bother to show up and listen. >> dana, i have to -- by the time you're observing this yesterday, there have been reports already about what they're doing in the chamber so they know that reporters like you are up there with your notebooks, the old-fashioned way, looking down from the press gallery on the united states senate. and so, for me knowing the senate the way i do, having worked there, it strikes me that was all chosen behavior. it seems to me rand paul wanted you to know that he thinks this is such a ridiculous process that's going on in this room that he is going to read a mag sean, that that was his way of sending the message to the press gallery. >> absolutely. he was reading that magazine wearing tan cotton chinos. earlier in the trial literally making an s.o.t. message saying another message said help me, these are not my parents like he was an abducted child forced to

sit through this and found it to be a joke. i think essentially all but three or four republicans, collins, murkowski, alexander, mitt romney, essentially were treating the trial as a joke or at best something to be gotten over with very quickly. and in the end there were only two of them who said let's at least have at least the show of having something resembling a fair trial. >> heidi, you had that tough job out in the hallways trying to get comments from people and your movements restricted more than usual. you did have one encounter with some mouse members who were there to defend the president i think that's gone viral where they simply could not answer the fact questions that you were asking. what was the mood yesterday on the day of the vote on witnesses? >> everyone knew going into this that the vote was not going to

succeed, that they would not have these witnesses. for those members that were key in making that happen, i think there was a lot of anxiety and agitation but it was predetermined because what we now know from the reporting is they had been in touch for weeks and everyone knew what the math needed to be in order to not have the witnesses. i would say that the one surprise was that lisa murkowski could have potentially voted for witnesses but didn't because she was so angry about the suggestion that the chief justice would be put in that position of potentially having to break the tie so that was the only surprise was that technically she could have gone ahead and would have just -- the chief justice could have just left it as it was. but the thing that was surprising to me, lawrence, is that even though you had so much

evidence that there were still so few republicans willing to say what lamar alexander was willing to say which is that, look, he did it. i just don't think it's impeachable. and that was the essence of the encounter that i had that went viral which was that we are still at a point where so many republicans are just denying the basic facts that have been laid out and then casting votes to not look at the evidence that we know that is there. instance, there's correspondence to tell us what was going on and what the approximate's motives in withholding that aid and yet this is coming out 24 hours after there was a vote to basically shut down even considering additional evidence. i do know that we have moved firmly into the political realm here, lawrence, and what the democrats were doing was making a last stand here to put all of those vulnerable republicans on

the record, not just voting to shut down witnesses generically but voting to shut down very specific forms of evidence, those vulnerable republicans all voted not to see those omb documents which we now know exist and dating all the way back to june say in the header, president follows up on potus doe man demands. >> they made it clear. new evidence emerges every day of this trial so far, especially the john bolton evidence, the manuscript stories that kept coming out and there just before they started the final day or the day of debate of witnesses, that day begins with "the new york times" revelation that john bolton's manuscript does indeed say that the president said directly to him this is what he was doing with ukraine and wanted john bolton communicating with ukraine about this,

introducing rudy giuliani to ukraine and even with that coming out on the day that they're voting on the question of yon bolton's testimony with the republicans, with those 51, it seemed nothing could shake them. >> and this is the big dilemma for swing state republicans in the senate. they're caught between the facts of the situation and some compulsion to hear from witnesses and documents and make it a fair trial and the republican constituents back home. gardner in colorado. mcsally in arizona v. to get through republican primaries and president trump so successful to convincing his base that he needs to be acquitted that republicans are afraid to get on the wrong side of those voters. they will be hearing about this in the general election. it is far from clear that the votes of gardner or mcsally are going to help them. collins has a different reputation. she has been a centrist far listening time. she felt compelled to show that she is trying to be fair and thoughtful and meticulous and

the only one republican who's facing re-election that decided to vote for witnesses and documents and by all indications the only one who is even in play, to potentially to vote to convict president trump and a great indication of the pressure republicans are facing from their own constituents comes from the newest senator, georgia's kelly lauf ler and made such an aggressive statement criticizing mitt romney as essentially appeasing the left for having the temerity to vote to call up witnesses and documents. that's a glimpse, the viewers a glimpse of republican party politics. >> lisa graves, i want to talk former senate staffer to former senate staffer. we have seen it that the senate is uniquely capable of acting in an anti-democratic way and i mean against the will of 75% of the american people.

and that is, of course, because the senate represents land and not people and so we see the outcomes. this is within of the most dramatic ones we have. they usually don't vote against 75% of the american people. i have to say even with my years of experience in the senate representing one of the big states working for a senator that represented a big state, senator moynihan of new york, i have always expected that i was going to get used to these kinds of anti-democratic outcomes in the senate. but i'm -- i have to say for myself, it doesn't insulate me very well from the disappointment of kind of vote we saw yesterday. how did it feel for you? >> oh, it was awful, lawrence. i agree with you. we know that structurally the senate created to represent land versus people but to see the senators, the majority, majority of the senate basically go against the will of the majority of the american people really was astonishing and in many ways this vote is such a dark and deep stain on the united states

senate. it really is sort of a peak of the failure of that senate and the leadership of senator mcconnell who's so beholden to power at any sake, so willing to rubber stamp judges that are simply and plainly unqualified for the bench. so willing to be a hand in hand with this president in denying witnesses, even though there's ed obviously in the trial that adam schiff and others spoken about. denying witnesses when every prior impeachment trial had witnesses is such a travesty, it's such a deep stain and no senator that's done such badness for the senate's reputation over the future besides senator mcconnell rg versus someone like senator mccarthy from my home state of wisconsin and i would just say this cover-up is so big, so much worse than the 18:30 of tape in watergate missing and a cover-up in plain

view and that the senate is part of -- has made this case and has made this stand against justice. >> lisa, heidi, thank you all for starting us off tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. and when we come back, the truth is all eventually going to come out. the whole trump truth. including the trump tax returns. later in the hour, david kay johnston will join us with the big news that the supreme court will decide this spring about subpoenas from the house of representatives for trump financial documents. also this evening, we'll get charlie cook's view of the -- how the senate trial might affect the presidential campaign going forward and the iowa caucuses on monday. we made usaa insurance for members like kate.

a former army medic, made of the flexibility to handle whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum. so to breathe better i started once-daily anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say go this way i say i'll go my own way with anoro.

♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. do not use anoro if you have asthma. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. the most common side effects are sore throat, diarrhea and pain in the arms and legs. ask your doctor about once-daily anoro to start treating your copd. ♪go your own way save at anoro.com ♪wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online

in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

for the first time in american history, an impeached president is running for re-election. and with 48 hours until the iowa caucuses, democratic candidates are placing the emphasis now on their ability to beat donald trump in november. >> if this is a low turnout election trump will win. and i believe that our campaign is the campaign of energy, is the campaign of excitement, is the campaign that can bring

millions of people into the political process who normally do not vote. >> i hear vice president biden saying that this is no time to take a risk on someone new. but history has shown us that the biggest risk we could take with a very important election coming up is to look to the same washington playbook and recycle the same arguments and expect that to work against a president like donald trump who's new in kind. >> joining us now to consider all of these theories of the race is charlie cook, editor and publisher of the cook political report. charlie, let's start with the bernie sanders argument there at the beginning which is a turnout argument that the reason he's the best positioned to beat donald trump in november is that he can generate the excitement that gets the size turnout you need. >> you know, the thing is, this is likely -- this is likely to

be either, a, the biggest turnout presidential election we have ever had or pretty darn close. we just had the biggest midterm election turnout since 1914. this is -- you look at polling. there are two groups of polls. one group like fox news poll shows interest in the election, all parties, everything, greater than ever in any previous presidential election or in '12 and '16. nbc/"wall street journal" poll is it shows up until the last two or three weeks before the election the highest it's ever been and these are numbers -- some of them from last year. this is going to be a huge turnout election and the other thing, though, is if it's a big, big, big turnout election it means pretty much all groups will go up. and so it's going to be probably fairly representative. personally, i think the best chance the president trump has is to convince some people that

are just like the people that did vote for him that aren't registered to come out, if it's just everybody that's registered already, frarngnkly i think he loses against most opponents. >> within bernie sanders' argument do you see in this field bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, do you see the excitement generator? is there someone in this field who's clearly the excitement generator that bernie sanders is saying that he is? >> i guess i would argue that it'd be hard for democrats to find a candidate who the people that really, really don't like president trump wouldn't vote for. i mean, this is a -- this loex is about trump. it is about him. frankly, democrats, i don't want it to be about anything than a referendum up or down. it's a choice it depends on what it is a choice between. so i don't -- you know? it is funny. even when we are not talking about policies or issues i can't

agree with bernie. i know why he is saying this but this is going to be a massive turnout. i think it really will. >> let's go to the buttigieg argument there saying, look, whenever the democrats go with the establishment candidate in this case, biden, pretty much names him, they lose. >> you know, i would agree. i think that i have never seen electability a bigger factor in any election. now, electability so far depends on -- it is like in the eye of the beholder like beauty. what is electability? we tend of to think of it as ideology. a democrat can make an argument because of the hunter biden stuff, you know, right now vice president biden is most electable. will he be in a month or two? there is an electability argument to make against every single democrat running but some

of them are just more compelling than others. but i think that the democrats -- i think the democrats are risk averse. the 60% that just want to hit the reset button. they want to go back to where it was before president trump. that's like 60% and the other 40 are like bernie supporters, warren. so it's more than just evicting president trump. >> let's listen to how joe biden sees the race. >> i think we are going to do well here. i think it's going to be really tight. no matter how it works out. bunched up. i think. and but i said from the beginning i expect to do well. i probably shouldn't tell you that. but i view this as, you know, four sets here. i really mean it. i think that, you know, the two

caucuses and the two first primaries, a package. how you come out of there i think will determine what your shots are. >> charlie, is he right? are those four a package? >> well, i'd say there's a two pack that, you know, iowa and new hampshire are just ten times more influential i think than nevada and south carolina with all due respect to the people from those states. we know from history that, look, the last four democratic nominees have won the iowa caucus. at least not counting george mcgovern, '76 forward, every democratic nominee has come in first, sec or third in iowa and then they came in first or second in new hampshire. that's where the field gets culled down. to be honest, i don't -- you know, i don't think -- i mean, vice president biden, what you saw at the end of that, i don't want to pick on the guy but there was a lowering of

expectations. he was trying to kind of level it so iowa, new hampshire and nevada and south carolina where i'm doing a lot better but what happens in these first two i think will affect the other two and then after that who is going to have the money to go into super tuesday to go up against bloomberg? that's like -- base which a poker game, a money of $100 million. >> charlie, if it's a money contest against bloomberg, then nobody can win that. they have to beat him on something other than just the money. charlie cook, thank you very much for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. when we come back, presidential historian jon meacham will join us to put the impeachment trial into historical perspective as really only jon meacham can. i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy,

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

(whistling) through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory... and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. saving for ava's college. being able to retire on our terms. taking care of dad. why ameriprise financial? my advisor cares about my personal goals. he gives us comprehensive advice. i feel prepared for what's expected in life and even what's not. she helps us feel confident. we know our financial future is secure.

with the right financial advice, life can be brilliant. ameriprise financial.

before the senate impeachment trial, the news media including this network were flooded with legal scholars trying to define what should be an impeachable offense according to the constitution but the simple truth always has been that the constitution leaves it

entirely to the united states senators to decide individually what is an impeachable offense worthy of conviction and removal of a president from office. here's republican senator lamar alexander explaining his view of the case against donald trump in an interview with chuck todd that will be shown on "meet the press" tomorrow morning. >> question for me was do i need modehat the president did what he did. i concluded, no. i think it was wrong. inappropriate was the way i'd say, improper, crossing the line. and then the only question left is, who decides what to do about that? >> well, who decides what to do about that? >> the people is my conclusion. >> if this weren't an election year, would you have had a different -- looked at this differently? >> probably come to the same conclusion because i don't think what he did -- i think what he did s a long way from treason,

bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. i don't think it's the kind of inappropriate action that the framers would expect the senate to substitute its judgment for the people in picking a president. >> joining you are discussion presidential historian and contributor jon meacham. there we heard it again. a senator's interpretation as lamar alexander putt it, what the framers would expect. what is your view of what the framers would expect from the senate to do with evidence like this? >> well, i think if you go straight back to the late 18th century and the formation of the constitution, with all respect to senator alexander, i think this is exactly what they were thinking about. they were concerned about the idea that a president could be captive to or malleable by foreign forces. we see america now as this remarkable continental nation from sea to shining sea.

in the phrase. they didn't know it was going to turn out that way. there were enormous concerns. really from the revolution i'd argue until 1815 or so. until after the war of 1812 that the british were coming back and if you were the british empire in the late 18th century and lost functionally a continent your reality is you lost some wars but you had a chance to reconquer and however irrational or unreasonable that fear might have been that was a real concern. on the part of the framers. they wanted, they were desperate to guarantee as best they could american sovereignty and i think that was part of the reason for the impeachment clause that was part of the anxiety about the executive. it was the reason there was such a backlash and that very first congress in new york when john adams and others wanted to refer to george washington as his

presidential highness. that's not quite right but it was defender of the american liberties and protector of the same. they wanted the very high what became high federalist titles. they were concerned about monarchy. they were concerned about foreign influence and what we have right now on the first day of february nearly 250 years later is both. the force -- the president's functionally tending toward monarchy and there is, in fact, this use of foreign force to shape our national life. >> marco rubio said just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office. and that can sound outrageous to 75% of the american people who wanted to hear from witnesses and john bolton. it can sound outrageous but what he said fits within what the

framers gave him, the power the framers gave him as a juror in the senate trial. >> it's true. you know, there's the old joke about you can't be for democracy when you win and against it when you lose. this is a triumph. you talk a lot about this. that is triumph of the republican, lower case "r" elements of the constitution over the democratic lower case "d" ones and i think what he said borders on lewis carroll and doesn't mean he was always wrong. >> yes. this was the founders dedesign they wanted this in the senate because at that time they thought it would be the body most insulated from politics. they were appointed by the states. they had six-year terms. the founders worried that the supreme court would be more political appointed directly by the president.

>> right. and there is this really -- i think about this all the time, particularly in our ever-more polarized era. this was this two theories of representation laid out by edmund burke in a speech to the electors of bristol i think it was. a representative either owed his constituents his -- a reflection of their will or he owed his constituents his judgment. and the direct model of representation versus the trustee model to dork out you here on a saturday and the senate to be the trustee model. the house supposed to be reactive to popular will with the two years and the size and the proportionately and the senate supposed to be as washington the saucer that cools the coffee. i think that we've -- that's faded a good bit through the years. the senate is an entirely

republican lower case "r" institution. little less so than the first 100 or so years of the republic, 140 years because of the direct election which is only a 20th century innovation. i think the -- to me i was thinking today just contrasting this week with those fabled days in august of 1974 and this is not sentimental. this is not an oh my god everything was so great back when tip o'neill was around. sort of that kind of predictable nostalgia but it is a historical fact that a lot of republicans until the very, very end did not want to see nixon driven by office and it is historical fact that ford who was a pretty partisan guy actually had tried to impeach douglas on the supreme court. had been a partisan warrior,

wouldn't fit in in this area he stood there in the east room and said we are a government of laws not of men. and i don't see how and not being hyperbolic i don't see how you look at the last three, four, years of american politics and can say that with as much confidence as gerald ford did. >> jon meacham, thank you for much for your consideration to give us this, this input that we need so desperately to put it in historical context. thank you, jon. when we return, democrats closing arguments in the beginning now of the 2020 presidential campaign. ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. managing lipids like very high tryou diet. exercise. tough. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements... you should know... they are not fda approved... they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear, there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. prescription power. proven to work. now with a new indication. ask your doctor about vascepa.

i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ well, here's to first dates! you look amazing. and you look amazingly comfortable. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck... that's when you know, it's half-washed. try downy fabric conditioner. unlike detergent alone, downy helps prevent stretching by conditioning and smoothing fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done.

i receivelize travel rewards. going new places! going out for a bite! going anytime. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

four democratic senators running for president prevented from campaigning in iowa most of the last two weeks because of the senate impeachment trial v. the other candidates been able to take affidavit of the senators' absence from iowa or have the senators been somehow able to stay competitive in iowa? the latest polling shows a clustering of four campaignlis the top and the final des moines register poll comes out at 9:00 p.m. which could give us a very different look. joining us now, nbc's ali vitale on the trail. mike memoli and vaughn hill yand

with the buttigieg campaign. ali, did warren run into trouble by being kept away from iowa for so long? >> reporter: it is not ideal scenario for this campaign. not much is clear in talking to allies of warren but she is on track and it is decision season. you hear from voters coming to the events feeling the pressure to decide and the hours are ticking down but elizabeth warren out here making the case she is the best person to beat donald trump. of course, that's the thing that all of the candidates are saying and some are doing it by calling out the other candidates in the race, others are doing it more subtly and how warren is doing this. she's trying to make the pitch she is just not the other progressive senator in the progressive lane. she is the progressive senator who can widen the democratic tent and bring in new people without the baggage of 2016 by bernie sanders surrogates and

hearing that pitch from warren and squad member presley talking about what she sees in warren and why she is supporting her. listen. >> we don't live in big check boxes. we live in complexity, nuance and intersection. and we need someone that legislates with that in mind! >> reporter: and look. it is a telling contrast between congresswoman pressly and the former squad member saying she was booing hillary clinton the other night here in iowa. again, resurrecting the suspect or the of 2016 and i was talking to a democratic operative looking at the situation and wondering if this doesn't end up helping someone in the mod ral lane like biojjoe biden and the might say i remember 2016, the split that came into the party and move hurt hillary clinton against trump. they may see it as not wanting to take the risk and help the

moderates and questions of how that works out here and warren's closing pitch all about unity. >> mike, how's joe biden handling the closing days before the iowa caucus? >> reporter: well, lawrence, while his rivals have been tied up in washington with that impeachment trial, joe biden has been maximizing the time here. tomorrow he'll have done more than two dozen events in nine days making closing argument talking about this as a battle for the soul of america, talking about the fact that yes republicans are dragging him and his son, family through the mud but that just is evidence of what he says is how worried they are of facing him as a nominee. i want to play for you comments earlier today from john kerry campaigning with joe biden. take a listen. >> and so, why now suddenly do you start to hear this stuff? why suddenly after all my years did you hear my military record

attacked? because that's the republican strategy. they're swift boating him. going after him. i'll asking iowa to make certain that never again will we allow a candidate for president to be slimed and smeared by people who don't even know what the truth is. >> reporter: now, lawrence, you talk about that iowa poll. we expect in the next couple of hours. joe biden managing the expectations game here saying he hopes and expects to win iowa and sees the four early contests as a package and the democratic nominee needs to be somebody to demonstrate to the broad coalition of the democratic party. >> thanks, mike. vaughn hilliard, did pete buttigieg take advantage of the senators being stuck in washington for a couple of weeks? >> reporter: exactly. pete buttigieg didn't need to rely on surrogates. he's held more than 45 campaign

events. five today. he's enroute to the last stop in cedar rapids. ali was talking about that difference, though. that generational difference. if you are looking at the top four candidates here at least according to polling, see three candidates in the 70s and then the 38, former mayor of south bend. in these last several days he is taking on that contrast quite explicitly suggesting not only through the lens of 2016 saying that it's time to turn the page and leave that campaign behind but very much going naming bernie sanders directly, naming joe biden directly. i want to let you hear a little bit of pete buttigieg just at the last campaign stop in. >> i'm asking you to consider the different approaches that are being offered because we have a real respectful but meaningful difference of opinion on the right approach.

vice president biden is making the case this is no time to take a risk on somebody new. but i believe history has shown us that the biggest risk we can take is to go up against a new kind of opponent and a new kind of moment by falling back on the familiar. it is gong to take something different. >> reporter: lawrence, pete buttigieg's relying on a broad coalition here in the state that includes independents and disaffected republicans. to note, he has two last campaign events tomorrow. one just off the campus of the university of iowa before downtown des moines. lawrence? >> vaughn, ali, mike, thank you all for joining us tonight. you don't get to sleep until tuesday. thank you very much for joining us. appreciate it. when we come back, the supreme court prepares to hear arguments on president trump's tax returns and other financial records. that decision is going to be delivered by june of this year.

could be biggest decision of the year by the supreme court. we'll be right back with that. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events

like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today

about once-weekly ozempic®.

there was another major story overwhelmed by the tidal wave of senate trial news

friday. the supreme court said they will take up not one but three cases dealing with donald trump's finances and his financial records and tax returns and finances connected to deutsche bank. announced hours hours before chief justice roberts presided over that witness vote in the senate impeachment trial. the supreme court cases will determine whether donald trump must turn over a decade worth of tax returns being pursued by the manhattan district attorney, the three house committees are also seeking his financial records. these rulings are set to come by the supreme court, will come by the end of june. right at the end of the presidential primary season. joining us now with this is joe winebanks, msnbc contribute and former special prosecutor. and editor and cofounder of d.c. reporting.org, and joe, let me start with you, here we are, watching an impeachment trial

that does not include an investigation into personal financial information of the president, but on this separate track, now headed for the united states supreme court, pretty much all of the financial documents that the congress is interested in involving donald trump will be before the supreme court. >> well, number one, it could lead to another article of impeachment, although i think that politically there's too much exhaustion for that. but it could lead to a state case against the president. and on the other hand, if the supreme cou supreme court pays attention to the dershowitz argument which is the same as what richard nixon said during watergate, if the president does it, it's not illegal, it would mean there's no reason for the supreme court to review any of this because he can't be investigated. he can't be prosecuted. he can't be indicted. he can't be impeached so let's just all go away and leave him

be unaccountable. i don't think the supreme court will do that. >> david, tell us exactly what the supreme court will be deciding, what are the various piles of documents we're talking about here? >> well, essentially this is a request for the tax filings and business records that back them up. back to 2011 and what donald trump is asking the supreme court to do is extend the idea of immunity. in fact, he's promoted this idea of absolute immunity that the supreme court said does not exist to his actions when he did not hold office. this is an extraordinary and dangerous claim that a sitting president of the united states cannot be investigated for conduct that took place before he assumed office. and let's remember that his lawyer, george consavoie told the federal district judge, kenny chen, do you mean to say if the president actually shot someone on 5th avenue, that the new york police could not investigate the murder and

constable said correct. that's donald trump's claim. you can't even investigate me and he's not a witness here. this is a subpoena for documents from the trump organization and from his accounting firm. >> and i remember when we were covering the circuit court of appeals on this, their opinion was very carefully drawn, and very carefully limited. they clearly knew their ruling would be appealed, and it looked like judge who wrote that opinion was trying to nail this down in a way the supreme court could not rip it up. >> you are completely correct and i think it was carefully drafted for that reason, and that it will be upheld. i think david is also exactly correct that this is a danger to democracy. it's a danger to justice in america. this is not -- there is no such thing as absolute immunity, even

for the president. let alone for someone who would five years later or -- become president. so we can't allow this kind of conduct. it's the same thing that the supreme court shouldn't do as the senate shouldn't have done. they have allowed the president to be unaccountable and made him free to do as he says under article ii, i can do anything i want and that isn't what the founders intended. it isn't what americans want and we wanted witnesses. we're not getting that. we need to make sure that things get put right again. >> and david, i just want to identify for the audience what we're not talking about in what the supreme court is considering and that is the house ways and means committee attempts to get donald trump's personal tax returns. the ways and means committee, the chairman has the right to ask for any tax trurreturns thae irs is in position of. the irs for the first time in

history refused to hand over those tax returns. one of the things on that case that the president i'm sure is very much aware of is if there's a new president sworn in a year from now in january, that afternoon, the new irs commissioner will immediately release those tax returns. it doesn't matter where that case is sitting in terms of courts at that point. a new irs commissioner appointed by a new president will immediately release those returns. >> well, i agree, it may take a while to get a new commissioner, but this commissioner clearly appointed by donald trump would not himself refuse the order of congress and would not disobey the law. that's the reason they have treasury secretary mnuchin, saying he was not assuming responsibility for not complying with the law. i hope some day down the road, congress brings in the irs commissioner who's serving today, and questions him about why he didn't step forward as the person who said i'm not

going to comply with the law. >> david, kay johnson, joe wi winebanks, thank you very much for joining us. msnbc's coverage of the impeachment, and a special edition of p.m. joy, live from java jo's in des moines, iowa, that's next. o's in des moines, , that's next.

the better question would be where do i not listen to it. while i'm eating my breakfast... on the edges of cliffs... on a ski lift... everywhere. ♪ download audible and start listening today. ♪all strength, we ain't stoppin' believe me♪ ♪go straight till the morning look like we♪ ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪ ♪all strength, no sweat we all use our phones very differently. we need a great network all the time. (vo) everyone in your family is different. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. (vo) so verizon has plans to mix and match starting at $35. and up to $700 off the latest iphone. the network more people rely on, gives you more.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

i won by four million votes, i won overwhelmingly in delegates. there was no question about who was going to be the nominee, but unfortunately his campaign and his principle supporters were just very difficult and really constantly not just attacking me but my supporters, we get to the convention, they're booing michelle obama and john lewis. i mean, it was very distressing. >> good evening, and welcome. i'm in des moines, iowa, where in just two days, we will get our first sense of which democratic candidate voters want to see go against donald trump. with the events of the last