. ♪ >>> good news, you're going to be seeing a lot more of barry burke.counsel to the house judiciary committee who destroyed cory lewandowski in 30 uninterrupted minutes of questioning. >> my question to you, sir, is on national television did you lie about your relationship to with the special counsel and whether they sought your interview? >> i don't know. >> why did you lie about the president giving a message to the attorney general about the special counsel's investigation? >> i don't recall that particular day and my mindset at the time so i couldn't answer that. >> barry burke will get 45 minutes of uninterrupted questioning during the republican -- to the committee will get equal time according to a resolution passed in the house rules committee today that will be voted on the full house tomorrow establishing the rules and procedures of the impeachment inquiry committees. joining our discussion now john heilemann, co-host and executive producer of showtime's "the circus." he's also an msnbc analyst. we saw two things today. that sailing through t

of part of what we saw in the house judiciary committee, right, or rather with house intel when barry burk the -- was the congress members on the republican side making procedural arguments about why they couldn't have barry burk ask questions, so i would see a repeat of that. >> for the president, if we do proceed to a trial in the senate, the president can have a mix of both white house counsel and private lawyers. we saw that in the clinton impeachment where sheryl mills was white house counsel. but you at others representing the president as well. so it can be a mix there. >> great details. fascinating learning from each of you. and i know that our viewers are interested because those are questions they wanted you guys to answer. so we appreciate it. i will tell everyone you can always give us more questions on all platforms. i will continue to do this, so i would love to get in more of your questions and get a sense of what you guys want to know about. >>> now, coming up, the live debate with two legal experts on the core questions, all the evidence about whether to impeach and convic

barry burke, one of the lawyers on the judiciary committee who did part of the interviewing of coreyewandowski in his hearing, that was a more effective part than when the members were interviewing him. i think this will be more substantive. the important part is that the republicans are now on notice that that's the way it's going to happen, because in one of the judiciary committee hearings, the vice chairman collins said that he didn't know and they weren't prepared to be able to have staff do interviewing. now it's all out there. the way this is going to happen is out there. republicans and democrats have an opportunity to prepare for these hearings. >> thank you so much. carrie, laura and kylie, i appreciate it. >>> next i'll be speaking live with a congressman who got into a shouting match with his colleague as a key witness testified in these impeachment inquiry hearings. plus, a stark moment as the president's pick for ambassador to moscow condemned president trump for asking foreign powers to investigate his rivals. >>> and breaking in california, wind gusts have not hit hur

hearing with corey lewandowski that kind of went off the rails and came back on the rails when barry burke, a very skilled lawyer, questioned lewandowsky, that part of it came at the end of the hearing, brian. and the hard core people were still watching. what this resolution says today is that the expert questioning will come at the beginning of the hearing, in the first 90 minutes of those hearings, 45 for the democrats, 45 for the republicans. i think that's going to put this expert questioning front and center in these hearings and make them more effective and more on point. >> as you point out, lewandowsky had already river danced up and down the table before the professional lawyer arrived. last question, how long do you think this process will take? >> well, this is going to be very quick by congressional standards. maybe not like pizza delivery standards, but by congressional standards. if you think about 1998, starr delivered his report to the congress the first week in october, and they finished december the 19th. the goal here is to still finish before christmas, if not sooner,

. >> we were all impressed by the performance of barry burke, the state counsel the other day.nd i know we're not politicians because we're not there, but all these members of these committees especially senior members who earned their seniority want their five minutes. but the problem is it's like basketball, it's always going to the other side for five minutes and the republicans have no interest in coherence. >> that's right. >> is there any way to streamline these hearings so you have some coherent -- however you do it -- coheerrent set of questions so the witness can star? >> i have no doubt they have to work on that and they will work on that. this is too grave of a situation to actually sit down and put some rules on paper. >> remember sam dash in the hearings, the prosecutor? >> yeah, absolutely. and if you have to go down that route you will. but there are members who spent hours, days, months in this hearing from witnesses, listening to information and reading. and sometimes they do have a right to participate in these hearings, but how do they do it? who's going to a

to come from judiciary committee and he refused to do it when he was going to be questioned by barry burke and or norm eisen. and as we all know, chicken barr didn't show up. >> i vividly remember your kfc appearance. >> and we pointed out the fact that the attorney general was afraid to be questioned by the attorneys who tore lewandowski apart. and barr did chicken out. >> i'm almost out of time. the president's attacks on these whistle-blowers saying that he's searching to try to find out about this whistle-blower, for example. what remedies does congress have, the whistle-blower's attorneys have raised a concern that that person is protected under the law here. so what can congress do? >> i'm not sure exactly what congress's role will be, but there are whistle-blower laws that exist that protect the whistle-blower and he might have to resort to court. i'm not sure what congress can do. i'm sure it's being looked into. what the president is doing to try to ex pose this man in saying that in the old days he would have been shot or hung for treason, is despicable. it's un-american, it's no

. >> we're going to be seeing more of barry burke, the counsel who asked questions of that committeeg the questions for 45 minutes at a time. but i want to get your reaction to what control you think this rule gives chairman nadler in the house judiciary committee. >> well, lots of control. but you expect that on the committee chair. in 1998, we gave the -- the republicans gave the white house exactly the procedural guarantees that the democrats are now giving to the trump white house. it's almost word for word in terms of procedural guarantees. and after those were voted on, they were voted on by voice vote in the committee. here you actually have a house rule in place, which is much stronger than you had in 1998. after those rules were put in place, tom moonmy and myself had to meet with the white house counsel to discuss is it implementation of those rules. while there was intense disagreement during the 1998 impeachment, during the meeting when we had to negotiate how the rules would be carried through, there was complete cooperation by the white house. the clinton white house co

lewandowski, checked by glen, he was questioned by not a politician but barry burke in what many thought was one of the more effective parts of that hearing, which effects watergate. you won't see fred thompson, you will hear his voice, who at the time was the lawyer on the committee. take a look. >> did you say that because you wanted to protect the president? >> not to the best of my recollection. >> sir, did you deny it because you wanted to protect yourself? >> not to the best of my recollection, mr. burke. >> why did you lie on national television? >> are you aware of the installation of listening devices in the oval office of the president? >> i was aware of listening devices. >> kornell, if the jury is made up of the type of people that you help win elections, senators, how much does it matter that the public might see hearings that are really led by non-politicians or professionals and how people ultimately judge this case around the nation? >> i think it becomes real problematic. because i don't see the number of americans who are -- who approve of this process and approve of th