o.j. simpson is in that car? >> the o.j. the trial, which goes on and on and on and is televised day after day after day. >> this is going to be a long trial. there's a lot of evidence to come in. >> the o.j. simpson case was such a national phenomenon that those of us who were covering it just lived this case 24 hours a day because there was so much demand for people talking about it. >> as simpson struggled to slide the gloves on to his hands and turned to a juror saying "they're too small," prosecutors were incensed. >> the trial was on television during the hours that had traditionally been the time for >> he appears to have pulled the gloves on, counsel. >> and o.j. was very much a soap opera. >> impeached by his own witness. >> i ask you to put a stop to it. >> excuse me, mr. bailey. will you stand up and speak when it's your turn. >> no question that the best tv show of the '90s was the o.j. simpson trial, and everybody on it was riveting. >> the simpson trial finally winding to a close. >> we the jury in the above ent

o.j. simpson trial. it is a good one in this case in the sense that in the o.j. simpson trial, there was a defense and the defense was raised. it was a defense that did challenge the evidence, because remember that moment with the glove, and if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. i'm saying the glove didn't fit. but they also had evidence that suggested the fbi had been biased and had undermined the credibility of the physical evidence. i think this is why it's such an historic moment, but the notion about what does it even mean to have enough to impeach a president? in other words, what the democrats are saying is we have all this evidence including the very words of the president, including gordon sondland who says it was a quid pro quo. >> and mick mulvaney. >> and mick mulvaney in his press conference saying get over it, we do this all the time. you didn't even have that kind of evidence -- >> what is the republican response if you can en capsulize it? >> heidi said it really well earlier. they're saying let's even ignore a conversation about evidence and say pro

o.j. simpson jury? jury nullification? in the o.j. simpson case it was we don't like the cop.case, we don't like the democrats. so we are going to ignore the facts, ignore the evidence, there will be no evidence, not guilty. >> the problem would be that would be a sham. so nancy pelosi can't control what goes on in the senate according to the constitution, as you read here for us, chris, but she can try to say if this is going to be a sham, well then i don't need to really put any energy into the managers that i sent over there. send political, send rhetorical people. if it's a matter of actual witnesses, john bolton, mick mulvaney are called to give first-hand testimony about the president's actions, then 90% someone who knows about that. >> how can the house force the senate to call witnesses that the house itself refused to call? >> they didn't refuse to call them, they couldn't call them because they couldn't come, because guess what, the president said don't go up there. >> they refused to let that process run its course. and now they're claiming testimony -- >> into thei

o.j. simpson and he can hangout with that for the rest of his term. >> one of my loose rules is if something rapid succession, it's probably something to pie attention to. the president, in his letter to pelosi, said you're insulting people of faith by saying you pray for me. earlier wide rr heard members of the gop side of congress saying, from a religious bent that the president was being treated as badly as jesus -- its tlr third time we've heard them go to that. that means it's not a mistake anymore. >> house democrats launching impeachment proceedings is nothing like the cruseification of jesus christ for our sins of this entire world. wants to make that really clear. the seconds thing is from a historical stand pointed, it's interesting. because during johnson's img peachment, you-them argue that piled afforded you more rights in his trial than were given to andrew johnson. so that, along with pearl harbor shows we need to refresh our higs oracle analogies and not everything rises to those levels. it just shows how much norms have broken down that for republicans, that wasn't even some

o.j. simpson, back in 1968. arthel: go tigers.they win the president's cup in australia. tiger woods leads the team, making him the first captain to also play in 25 years. woods claiming a personal victory, taking home his 27th match win. the next president's cup will be here in the u.s. at quail hollow club in north carolina in 2021. >> always great to see team usa to win. arthel: good for tiger. victory for him. do you know how to spell geaux. >> g-o. arthel: no. geaux. that does it. "fox news sunday" with chris wallace is next. we're back. >> louisiana girl. can't take the girl out of louisiana. can't take louisiana out of the girl. chris: imchris wallace much the house of representatives set to vote on impeachment this week. the fbi faces fire from an inspector general's review of the trump russia investigation. ♪ >> so many basic fundamental errors were made by three separate hand-picked investigative teams on one of the most investigative investigations. chris: ig finding no political bias opening the probe of the jump tam c

o.j. simpson trial in which a man who many people believed was guilty was instead acquitted. with that acquittal becoming meaningness for a lot of his fellow citizens. overnight a friend sent me a tweet by professor kendi that i think sums it up even better because the outcome of the o.j. simpson trial was indeed in doubt. no one knew what that verdict was going to be until it happened. whereas trump's trial in that trial, to quote professor kendi, it's becoming like a jim crow trial. deep down everyone knows everything. everyone knows the racist defendant is guilty. everyone knows the all-white jury is going to quickly acquit. everyone knows that the exonerated defendant will continue to break the law. joining me to discuss is someone who will be voting on articles of impeachment this week. minnesota representative ilhan omar who serves on the foreign affairs committee. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> when i saw that text overnight, the tweet sent to me by a friend, it was jarring because i was thinking of an o.j. trial situation. but it's true. no o

o.j. simpson's lawyer. i was clause von bulo we he's lawyer.is what people that represent i'm being accused by woman with no evidence who has a history of making false accusations against bill clinton, al gore, tipper gore. if a person like me can be accused how does any decent man protect themselves against being falsely accused? and once you've been falsely accused, how do you defend yourself? that is why i wrote this book not only for me, if you it happened to me, it can happen to anybody. your son, your grandson. your father, your brother. >> the book is guilt by accusation. you throw it out there and you're guilty? >> look, 92nd street y had me speak for every year last 25 years, suddenly black balled my. you have been accused. no matter whether you're guilty or innocent, we don't want trouble. if you have been accused today in america you are guilty, there is nothing you can do. i have emails, manuscript she admits she never met me. yet that is not enough. i have her lawyer on tape saying she is wrong, simply wrong. it would be impossible

o.j. simpson. so i thought it was you so i walked over and said are you alan and he said yes. i had a conversation and then he left the barr with an attractive young woman. so he thought that was funny. i immediately picked up the phone and called the police in washington. i said what if he takes this woman home and does something terrible. she thinks she's with alan. i have been twice before been misidentified. this woman was a little funny where a woman writes me a lovely letter saying it was a nice weekend that last weekend we spent together over a fire in maine. you're such a gentleman. i hope we'll see you again. fortunately, i spent the weekend with my wife and new york city and we saw the letter. what happened is, the sky picked this woman up, i've never thought i was a great pick up line but apparently it's worked for at least two people. in the beginning i thought maybe this woman who accused me, a case of mistaken identity. not now. she clearly knows without any doubt that she's falsely accusing me. so she is somebody who would go to prison for making up a story. she

o.j. simpson, of course. that was a circus.o you feel like the public, the press handled this by comparison to some other things that you've covered, getting a sense of the temperature and elon musk's star power >> reporter: there is at the most out here seven cameras, during oj, you had 550 million cameras. it is strictly the business media and tabloids, australians here, that sort of thing, and it is federal court you can't get your tamecamera inside i love covering these cases. no matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, you walk inside an american courtroom in front of a jury, and that jury of your peers, anything can happen. they hold all of the power i will say if elon musk is going to have a jury of his peers, 8 people on the jury, most have college education, professional people, close as you'll get. one guy owns two teslas and is a lawyer in immigration law and is on the jury. >> jane, thanks for helping us out. >> reporter: he was the last guy. there were no more challenges. they had to accept him >> j

o.j. simpson of presidents would be his fate. that is, he would have not only a red asterisk next to his name but he would become the first president who was impeached in his first term who fundamentally was not really acquitted but just given a pass in the senate, and he would then go down in history in the way that his misconduct deserves. i think that would have effect for the future. it would make it less likely that future presidents would be as outrageously lawless as this one has been. >> and trump should remember that eventually a court did get o.j. on another thing and there are other courts out there that are looking at things donald trump does. before i let you go, val demiings, a member of congress from florida has called on mitch mcconnell to recuse himself because of what he said on fox. i think everyone doubts that's going to happen, but you had said that moscow mitch is potentially afraid of crossing vladimir putin who's oligarchs like the owner of the aluminum plants, do you believe that perhaps one of the reason

o.j. simpson. i represented many people you don't like and some who i don't like. that is my job. i represented epstein. i was his lawyer. he paid me for every minute i spent with him. we worked out a deal with the government that represented the comparative strength of our site and their side. i will continue to defend the people and the constitution. epstein did not use me. i never met any of the young women, i did not know young women were involved. i was introduced to him by a wife. i was told he was a close president to the president of harvard. my association with them was largely academic and that it became presidential professional when i supported him. when i represented him. i will continue to defend the constitution, i will continue to defend the sixth amendment and i will do it proudly because i am serving the interests of the rule of law and the constitution. >> dallas, texas, republican. >> thank you for taking my call. i would like to know if alan could reflect on the relationship between the powers of government, executive and congressional, how it fits with a stat

o.j. simpson, jury nullification. we don't like the cops. in this case, we don't like the democrats.e going to ignore the facts, ignore the evidence. there will be no evidence. not guilty. the problem would be that would be a sham. so, nancy pelosi does, can't control what goes on in the senate, according to the constitution as you read here for us, chris but she can try to say, if this is going to be a sham, well then, i don't need to really put any into the managers that i send over there. send political, rhetorical people. if it's a matter of actual witnesses. if john bolton, mick mulvaney are called to give first-hand testimony about the president's actions i need sense who knows about -- >> how can the house force the senate to call witnesses that the house itself refused to call. >> they didn't refuse to call them. they couldn't call them because they wouldn't come, guess what, jason, president said don't go up there. >> they refused to let that process run its course. and now they are claiming. >> testimony into their slow walking strategy of the white house? >> my problem wit

o.j. simpson. but the real question ends up being -- and glen probably agrees with me as he and i are both former prosecutors, you don't want to overcharge in an indictment, you don't want to overpromise and under deliver. the key question is will the house judiciary committee when they're drafting these articles of impeachment will they try to do everything or focusly narrow just on the ukrainian scandal. i think you're probably going to see a little bit of both when we end up reading the articles of impeachment. >> katie, if you were to pick just one, would it be abuse of power since doesn't that have a fairly wide umbrella to it? >> it's very appealing and that's a great question, alex, because abuse of power is so general it can include several subset examples. we have a very tough time with people being really tight on the critical language of bribery and extortion so i think abuse of power will be a great catchall for exactly the reason. >> glenn, katie thought you would agree with her. do yo

o.j. simpson and others, not a great set of people for the president to be aligned with and as i said i don't know that they really mount much of a defense but the same theatrics opposed to a legal and factual argument. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. you're watch live coverage. the house judiciary committee about to resume live debate on the articles of impeachment. hi i'm joan lunden. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. li

o.j. simpson of presidents. not sure that's the legacy he wants. he's already impeached. laurence tribe, thank you for your time. >> thank you, joy. >>> up next -- lessons from the last president to be impeached. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. yeah, i could see that. looking around here i see tablets, laptops, printers, smartphones. they're all connected to the internet. they're all connected. can your network handle all those devices? sometimes. comcast business runs on the nation's largest gig-speed network. so you can get the bandwidth you need to power all of your devices at peak performance. if all of my devices could have that kind of speed, ice line for just $64.90 per month. call today. comcast business. beyond fast. >>> i just take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private.

o.j. simpson of presidents. people would think that was b.s., that was not a real trial. there was mystery about what the outcome was doing to be in the o.j. trial, and when the result came out a lot of people thought it was invalid. is that what you think he wants to do as sort of the o.j. of presidents. >> donald trump has the love/hate with the media and televisi television. he hates it when it's not favorable to him so i think his biggest concern is that when we move to the senate trial that there is some way that the testimony of a john bolton or a rudy giuliani makes its way on to televised screens, because there in lies the ability for the trial to really paint him in a negative light. so on one hand to your point he wants this trial to be quick, to be favorable, to be coordinated in a way by mitch mcconnell that gives him quick vindication so he feels as though he was not impeached but there is the risk that this trial does go the other way and that rather than ending up being favorable to donald that it does expose further his high crimes and misdemeanors. >> and

o.j. simpson of presidents, acquitted but many people who cheer the verdicts are going yeah, he did

o.j. simpson murder trial mystery and television spectacle. >> if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. >> in thent to their newsroom ethics before then. >> the truth is, everybody was talking about it. i don't think you can ignore a story like that. >> on virtually every late night show, there were jokes about him. >> when lorena cut off your penis, how did that make you feel? >> he was in "the washington post" almost every day. it was hugely popular. >> why do you think people were so fascinated by it? >> probably 'cause the way we looked back then. two good-looking young people that, you know, two -- from two different worlds. >> i think women were kind of energized by it. it was somewhat shocking, the degree to which women were just almost enthralled. >> i knew that this case was going to be very significant. we had just been through anita hill's testimony less than two years before that. >> are you a scorned woman? >> no. >> there had been that kind of watch word, that the men just didn't get it. and very quickly after lorena bobbitt maimed her husband, the answer came back, well, do you get

o.j. simpson, the first run the comes to mind, any time there's an investigation like this and you have thesects, you already have a coconspirator in this 13-year-old pointing fingers at your client. you're going to say well, there's a compelling witness who is there at the time of the murder who's going to be testifying against my client, i'm going to have to turn around and now focus on law enforcement and say you did not do the right thing, you did not investigate the case properly, you planted evidence. this is arrested judgment because there's so much pressure to bring these kids to justice. >> leland: speaking of pressure, there's a lot of pressure in an extraordinary public case that is really shocked the city of new york. ted williams, on saturday, brought up that this case has a lot of parallels to the central park 5k's. the way the nypd is handling this case is a result almost, of the central park five. what are you picking up in what nypd is doing differently, maybe? >> that is such a great point, and there is actually some overlap, i will tell you why. the 13-year-old who was brou

o.j. simpson. i represented many people you don't like and some who i don't like. that is my job.sented epstein. i was his lawyer. he paid me for every minute i spent with him. deal with thea government that represented the comparative strength of our site and their side. i will continue to defend the people and the constitution. epstein did not use me. i never met any of the young women, i did not know young women were involved. by a introduced to him wife. i was told he was a close president to the president of harvard. my association with them was largely academic and that it became presidential -- professional when i supported him. -- when i represented him. to defend thee constitution, i will continue to amendment and i will do it proudly because i am serving the interests of the rule of law and the constitution. host: dallas, texas, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know if alan could reflect on the relationship between the powers , executive and congressional, how it fits with from ament i heard committee member, stating congress had the sole