tv MSNBC Live With Velshi and Ruhle MSNBC October 31, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PDT
ll, click, or visit a store today. and wishing everyone a happy and safe halloween from our amr family. we're talking about daffney, jasper, nate, eleanor, and ella, our stars. and here is ali velshi for "velshi & ruhle". >> i was quite shocked when i looked up to see you on tv today after the nats' victory last night. i definitely thought -- >> i'm -- >> that would have been -- >> i could not miss this show. >> i know you don't. you don't miss anything. that's why every time i complain about working too much, i look up and see andrea mitchell there. i'm like, okay, velshi, shut up. good to see you, as always. congratulations and happy halloween to you. hello, everyone. it is halloween. it's thursday, october 31st. we cannot overstate the importance of this date and today's news. coming up this hour on "velshi & ruhle," for just the fourth time
in u.s. history, the house of representatives has voted to initiate impeachment against a president. we will hear the white house reaction as president trump awaits his fate. plus, as we speak. another former white house official testifies in the inquiry with more witnesses slated to appear in coming days, possibly even president trump's own former national security adviser, john bolton. and across the country, americans are reacting to the impeachment vote. we'll talk to them about this new moment for the nation. >> on this vote, the yays a 232, the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. >> and with that gavel at 11:29 eastern this morning, the house is now set to hold impeachment hearings against a sitting u.s. president. this has only happened four times since the birth of this nation. president trump now joining bill clinton, richard nixon, and
andrew johnson. the final vote, 242 yeas to 296 nays. only two democrats jumped party lines and voted against the resolution. this means house committees can now begin public hearings. we'll break that process down for you a little later in the hour. and how the president and his counsel could participate. we're already getting reaction from lawmakers on the hill. >> this is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. the president has had no rights. >> weapon recognize the seriousness of this undertaking. we recognize that we have been compelled by the circumstances to move forward. we will undertake this duty with the seriousness it deserves. and to the best of our ability. >> today, the country just witnessed the only bipartisan vote on that floor was against. >> if, after a fair and thorough
inquiry, the allegations against president trump are found to be true, they would represent the profound offense against the constitution and against the people of this country. it is the duty of the house to vindicate the constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that this kind of conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public that places their trust in him or her. >> joining us now from capitol hill, msnbc correspondent, garrett haake. i thought, kevin mccarthy said the only bipartisan vote today was against, because two democrats did not support the democratic motion. we knew that going in, by the way. we knew that there were a handful of democrats who had not signed on to an impeachment inquiry. but that doesn't really -- i don't know if that's what most people think of when they think of bipartisan. >> no, probably not, ali. and it speaks to the nature of how broken and partisan our
political system is right now. justin amash, the independent who voted in favor of the resolution, was a republican until a few months ago, and he essentially got drummed out of the party by not being as supportive as donald trump as has become essentially necessary within the party. so you would have had a sort of playing field not been the way it was. not a terrible surprise here that the two democratic members who did vote against moving forward on this issue did so. one is a longtime representative of a fairly conservative district in minnesota. a heavily donald trump district. the other a freshman representative from a district in new jersey has flipped back and forth. both men in their public statements afterwards held out the possibility that they could ultimately vote in favor of an impeachment article somewhere down the road. but they had similar complaints to what republicans have had about this process, saying that it has been unfair to the president and too partisan thus far. nothing in the vote today will change that, but it does set the
table for open hearings, moving this process into the sunlight, which i've heard even from a lot of democrats, saying it is past time to do that, ali. >> you, yesterday, talked about nancy pelosi, when you said, is the vote really going to happen? you said, it's not going to happen if she doesn't have the votes, because nancy pelosi is a master vote counter. talk to me about her strategy. >> and it looks like she had some significant margin for error today. we knew going into today's vote, there were only about half a dozen democratic lawmakers who have yet to come in favor of some sort of impeachment inquiry. all but two of those did, indeed, vote for this process step to move forward. i think it's important to note that while this is sort of a test vote for impeachment, it's not the same. this was very much a process vote. this sets up committee rules and rules about how transcripts will be delivered. it's not the same as a vote on an eventual article of impeachment, in which you'll have a whole different set of arguments being made, appealing to patriotism and the idea of putting country over party.
if indeed that happens. and we can all concede, that it's looking for a more likely than not that at least we'll get to that. but this was not that vote. so we will see a whole separate set of arguments made down the road. but for today, speaker pelosi knew that her troops would stay? line. as did the minority leader, kevin mccarthy, not losing a single republican vote, either. >> garrett haake, thank you very much for your reporting, as always. garrett haake for us on capitol hill. joining us now from capitol hill, new york democratic congressman and member of the house rules and budget committees, joe morelli. congressman, good to see you. thank you for being with us. i want to pick up where garrett left off. your committee put together the rules or you went through some meetings in the last two days, in which you dealt with the rules. those rules have been put forward. so anybody who is voting for this was just voting for the rules by which an impeachment procedure would be governed. it's momentouomentous, because wouldn't have this if we were not expecting articles of impeachment. but voting for this or against it was not the same as voting
for or against impeachment. >> no, that's absolutely right. actually, this is really the rule that sets forth the public phase, essentially, of this inquiry. so the inquiry has been, up to this point, taking depositions and hearing meetings, going through the intelligence committee. what will happen now is the public phase of that inquiry. and so it was necessary of the resolution so we would have the rules of engagement, essentially for the public process. >> talk to me about the process and the allegations made by republicans about the fact that the process has been secretive and behind closed doors and all of that stuff. do your rules specifically address how these hearings and depositions will look moving forward? >> well, they do. but let's back up for just a moment. because i do think this is an important point, which is, the reason that we've been taking depositions in -- as the republicans call it, in secret, we call it closed session, is because different than both the clinton and nixon impeachment inquiries, the department of justice in both of those cases appointed a special prosecutor, which held closed-door
depositions and took testimony. so, this department of justice and the attorney general refusing to even acknowledge that there may be an issue here that rises to the level of a special prosecutor, really left us no choice but to have the closed-door taking of depositions and taking of evidence. what we now enter into is the public phase and the great thing about this is, like the closed-door sessions, republicans, minority members, will be seated at the table. they'll be able to ask questions. they'll be able to put together a list of people that they wish to subpoena. the president, unlike the impeachment process with both presidents clinton and nixon will have far more ability to be involved in these proceedings, to be able to state their case and ask questions. so i think this is a very fair process. and i know that my colleagues on the other side are really focused on process. and the process is important. but it's really important to look at the substance here. that's really what we are charged with doing. and over the next several weeks, that process will be very public, indeed.
>> however, the committees that have been holding these hearings do have republicans on them. and those republicans have been attending these depositions. so it's not that much of a secret. >> oh, no, there's no question. and it is really absurd to suggest that from the very beginning, we would have had a public process or a public hearing without closed-door sessions. and i hate to analogize this entirely with a criminal proceeding, but to the extent that the analogy holds up, this is really where investigators bring people in, want to make sure there isn't the coordination of stories by various witnesses, so this is really a essentially important part of the first phase of an inquiry. but now we go into the public face where the american public will be able not only to access the information, but to make assessments of their own. and they'll have the information that's been essentially gathered during these closed-door sessions, because they'll be made public as well, redacted for classified information. but generally, people will be available -- will avail themselves of all the information that was available to members behind closed doors up until now.
>> so let me ask you this. as you and i established off the top of the interview, if this was -- this is a process vote. this just allows and determines the rules. your two democratic colleagues who voted against it, congressman jeff vann drew and collin peterson, what's the rationale for voting against it if this is just the rules. this isn't a statement on whether or not you think the president should be impeached or not. >> well, in fairness, i think you would probably have to ask both of them. for me, this was a process question. but there's no question that when i go home to rochester, new york, late today, when the other members go to their various home districts, there will be people who will conflate these two things. and it's easy for us here to talk about process and then to talk about the next phase of the inquiry. i certainly understand that the public may not be able to have the sort of surgical precision about what's going on. so some people will take this as a proxy. i think that's unfair, but that's the way it is. and the way i talk to constituents is, look, this is the public phase, we have to go
through this public process. should articles of impeachment be forthcoming from the judiciary committee? then there will be a question and impeachment, the vote on impeachment is simply a question as to whether we believe there's a reasonable suspicion that the constitution was undermined and that the president abused his powers, and then whether or not the senate should take that up and decide whether or not, indeed, the president is guilty of the charges that the house might advance. so it is a multi-tiered process. but it's not as easy, sometimes, to be able to convey that to the average citizen. >> congressman, good to talk to you. thank you for joining us. congressman joe morelli, who is on the rules committee. >> thanks for having me on. >> and my buddy is here. hi. >> hi. good to see you. now joining us at the white house is nbc's own kelly o'donnell. kelly, obviously, the white house has already responded to the vote results. the president's weighed in. what has he had to say? >> reporter: well, from the president, we've seen a couple of tweets where he's again called this a hoax and said that it is hurting the stock market, as one example. that's pretty standard from the
president. but in a more lengthy statement from the white house, it's notable how they address this. first saying that the president has done nothing wrong and that democrats know it. nancy pelosi and the democrats -- and this is where you get the verbiage of the white house -- unhinged obsession with this illegitimate impeachment proceeding does not hurt president trump, they write. it hurts the american people. and then they talk about some of the issues where they believe focus should, instead, be things that we've seen the president talk about, agenda items for him that are, in his view, more important. and then, as it goes into the next graph, it talks about today's vote from speaker pelosi and the democrats has done nothing more, they write, than enshrine unacceptable violations of due process. that's where we're getting into that argument about white house officials saying this is just inherently unfair. and even as this next phase moves into a more public way, and the rules that were passed today do provide specific ways where the president and his
council can participate. officials i've talked to here say, that's still a problem, because we're coming in at a point where an inquiry has already, of course, been going on for some time. and publicly, it's being discussed and disseminated. so it's their argument that they're coming in at a point where their hands effectively tied behind their backs, as one white house official described it, even though some new public elements will come next. as you would expect, they are battling on the process and on the substance here from the white house. this is a day, a rainy day in washington where the president had no public events on his schedule. and so one of the things we've been looking for is might he be motivated to come forward, because of these momentous events to say something or do something publicly. so far, no indication of that. >> that's interesting. that is interesting. because there are tweets all over the place. stephanie grisham, who most people don't ever see on tv, she's kind of like a fox commentator, she's on fox all the time, but she doesn't hold press conferences, do you read anything into the fact that the
president is sort of quieter than normal? he's not entirely quiet about it. >> reporter: i think at this point, he is allowing the republicans on the house side, namely kevin mccarthy and the leadership team, to speak for him. they are most well versed in the rules of the house. but it will be something really for us to watch, because the president usually does not allow a lot of time to kind of expand when he is feeling frustrated. i happen to be in the west wing at about the time he moved from the residence, where, you know, it's the home and his home office, over to the west wing today. and there was an expectation that perhaps because of an open schedule, expectation on the part of journalists, not on the part of the white house, that there was room for the president to do something, should he want to. so that's what we'll be looking for. because, typically, the president likes to fill a void with his own opinions or views on these kinds of important matters. >> kelly, thank you, as always. kelly o'donnell for us, at the white house. coming up next, the latest
testimony by a former white house official before the impeachment inquiry, as former national security adviser john bolton prepares for a subpoena. and coming up, we're going to get out of washington to see what americans are saying about impeachment. >> did you vote for president trump in 2016? >> i did. >> you did? would you be supportive of impeachment now? knowing what you know. >> yes. >> i think the whole impeachment process is just a witch hunt. and i think it's a waste of time. tch hunt and i thinitk 's a waste of time
i'm your cat. ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you. sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce. and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me-ow. annoepidemic fueled by juul use with their kid-friendly so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c.
welcome back to "velshi & ruhle." on the crowded capitol hill today, a full house vote set the stage for public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. all while private hearings press on. testifying today behind closed doors, as we speak, tim morrison, who until his resignation yesterday was president trump's top national security adviser on european and russian affairs. now, according to a senior administration official, he has, quote, decided to pursue other opportunities. >> morrison replaced fiona hill back in july, who resigned before she testified to investigators in a closed-door session earlier this month. meanwhile, house democrats also want to hear from former national security adviser john bolton. his lawyer says that will not happen voluntarily, but he stands ready to accept service of a subpoena. let's just make a real important point.
remember, this administration has tossed aside subpoenas right, left and center. the fact that john bolton's lawyer is saying, nope, he won't come on his own, but just serves a subpoena, that certainly sounds like, yep, he's ready to talk. >> joining us now, nbc news contributor carol lenick. carol, tim morrison. could his testimony today be a turning point? is it important? i'm wondering what he can say that others haven't said. because everything that everybody thought donald trump did on that phone call with volodymyr zelensky has been corroborated. >> absolutely, ali. i think there are two ways to look at tim morrison's testimony. the first one is that it corroborates the accounts. in other words, it's another brick in the wall of national security experts who say this call was worrisome, the events before it were worry soisome. the events before it where trump was really interested in getting
an investigation announced in exchange for releasing federal funds, military aid, and agreeing to a meeting with zelensky. the second way that tim morrison's testimony is really important is, it's not like he can be disregarded by republicans on the hill as a deep state obama holdover or whatever new catchphrase there is for people who are civil servants. remember, republicans said bill taylor was part of the deep state. the president said these are people trying to reject the presidency and a coup against him. but in this case, tim morrison was chosen because he was a trump supporter. a person inside the white house who basically was much more of a firsthand witness to some of this push that was making the national security council so unnerved and upset. >> it's almost less about the president and more about republican members of congress who may decide it is time to part ways with the president and do something different.
if john bolton were to testify, we know what we're going to hear out of the white house. he's angry. he's now out of favor with the president. this is what ex-employees do. but for every other republican in washington, they have known john bolton for years. >> 30 years. >> this is a real guy, a real conservative, a savvy lawyer. what's to come if he speaks and backs up what we've heard from fiona hill and others? >> i think you've pointed out the exact issues here with bolton. he is a known quantity. he is a goper, born and bred. he's given significant financial support to a lot of the republicans who are going to be making some of these decisions about the president's fate. and he's a known entity to them. someone they trust and can count on. if he breaks with the president beyond just leaving at the president's request, if he breaks with him and says he was
engaged in an improper quid pro quo, that really will change the narrative definitively and profoundly. >> carol, you've got some bombshell reporting about the transcript of the ukraine call and what a white house lawyer is accused of doing. what did you find out? >> what we learned was, and it had been reported by other organizations that john eisenberg was the one who raised this point of, let's put this document on a secure or limited network, where people aren't going to see it, out of concern about leaks. the july 25 call sparked a lot of concern among national security aides, including alex vindman, an army officer, who went right to eisenberg, right away. what we learned is that the reason this was placed on a top-secret server was because minutes after the call ended between president trump and president zelensky, this army officer went to john eisenberg, the legal adviser to the national security council and
said, this is really upsetting. what the president has done is wrong. we cannot be asking foreign governments for their assistance in investigating a u.s. citizen. it's totally improper. and on that note, eisenberg made a command decision in that very meeting, conferring with another lawyer and said, we need to get this document on a cia server, where people aren't going to see it. that raised a lot of hackles for vindman, wondering, why are we putting this some place where no one can see it? what's the point of that? it was a striking moment inside the white house. instead of asking more questions about what the president did wrong, apparently the emphasis was on preventing leak of this information. >> great reporting, carol, thank you, as always. carol lenick, as an nbc news contributor and a "washington post" national reporter. up next, we're going to look at just what to expect from the impeachment process, now that the house vote is in and the inquiry ramps up. plus, we are going to go live to california, to check on those
wildfires burning up and down the state. you are watching "velshi & ruhle," right here on msnbc. " r. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything
steve patterson. steve, the scene looks calmer both from a fire and a wind perspective than it was yesterday when we were talking to you. boy, boy, that looks like a wreck behind you. >> reporter: it is an absolute wreck, ali. and i think it speaks to what is the most terrifying thing about anybody that lives in california. is that this scene could be any community across essentially the entire state. you said it, these cluster of fires up and down the entire state of california, incredibly, entirely wind-driven, breaking out overnight. in this case, the hillside fire, this was an absolute dagger. take a look at this behind me. you can see firefighters on scene. they're taking care of any hot sp homes in this area that were either completely destroyed or otherwise took significant damage. this zone that we're in right now is a zone where 500 mandatory evacuations took place. firefighters obviously doing a few things on scene here. of.y're making sure that these
they're obviously trying to seal off this area, in case any of these embers that kick up create a worse situation. and they're doing things like running maintenance. we can show you another house off my right shoulder. take a look at this. this is right next door. you can seal firefighter see f family members back there. we spoke to them right before i'm speaking to you. this was in the family home since 1989. family members obviously devastated here on scene. firefighters combing through the wreckage with the family. this is just one, again, of several scenes throughout the entire state. you can see the gas company right here. they've dug a hole, trying to shut the gas off. trying to make sure that this doesn't turn into an even worse situation. but you also said it, as well. the winds have significantly died down since we were reporting to you yesterday. if i was talking to you yesterday, i would be in a wind tunnel again. so that is a good situation for firefighters trying to pare down this situation, but this is a wind event that is expected to last until 6:00 tonight. it's not even 11:00 in the
morning right now in california. so this is something that could change again at any point, at any time, making this a much worse situation in neighborhoods like this or really, again, anyone in the entire state, guys. back to you. >> all right, steve. good to see you. you definitely seem in a much safer situation than you were yesterday. >> no kidding. >> yesterday i was really alarmed. those fires were moving very quickly toward him. >> never seen anything like it. coming up, we're going to get out of washington, d.c. to see how voters view impeachment and look at just how this process is going to play out. and twitter making a big, big announcement that could affect how candidates reach voters. we're going to explain. you're watching "velshi & ruhle," right here on msnbc. i & ruhle," right here on msnbc. ts o severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores,
have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. i need all the breaks i can get. line? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.
that's a lot of words. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ as your life grows, so do your needs. ♪ and with bank of america and merrill, the benefits you get can grow, too. as a preferred rewards member, you can enjoy priority service and exclusive discounts... so your growing life can be more rewarding, too. ♪ what would you like the power to do? ♪ woi felt completely helpless.hed theonline.to do? my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. vo: take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name.
careerbuilder. work can work. find your work at careerbuilder.com the term impeachment is commonly used to mean removing someone from office, but it actually refers only to the filing of formal charges. the resolution that the house approved today directs six committees, these are the chairs of the six committees, intelligence, judiciary, foreign affairs, oversight and reform, ways and means and financial services to continue their investigations. meaning that the scope of the impeachment inquiry is not strictly limited to ukraine. it's possible that other issues being investigated in these committees like, for instance, president trump's taxes could inform the articles of impeachment. but the main probe of the impeachment inquiry, the ukraine
investigation, falls to the intelligence committee and its chairman, adam schiff. he's in charge of public hearings during which he and the ranking member, that's the top republican on the committee, as well as their staffs, can answer -- can ask questions of witnesses, can obtain documents. schiff can also release redacted depositions of previous witnesses to the public. now, schiff is going to write a public report of his findings and recommendations for articles of impeachment in consultation with the chairs of the foreign affairs and oversight committees. and he's going to send those, all of the committees are going to send their recommendations to the chair of the judiciary committee, jerry nadler. the other committees will send their findings as well to the judiciary committee, which will begin the process of drafting articles of impeachment. that would be the equivalent of an indictment of the president. the judiciary committee will then hold open aerhearings, aft which the judiciary will hold a markup to review the articles before sending them to the house for a debate and a vote. a simple majority, roughly 218
members, is then needed to impeach in the house. now, that would be the impeachment of the president. if that happens, the senate then holds a trial on impeachment, with the chief justice of the supreme court presiding over that trial. senators vote whether to convict or acquit the president. the threshold here is higher. it's a super majority. if all 100 senators are present for the vote, 67 votes would be needed to convict. so some republicans would have to vote in favor of conviction. now, if that threshold is reached, the president is then removed from office, and the vice president takes his place. this step has not happened yet in u.s. history. joining us now, nbc news justice correspondent, pete williams, and former assistant watergate special prosecutor, jill wine-banks. >> it's a treat to have jill with us. >> right here in person. not in a studio. great to have you here. pete, let's start with you. when do we expect to see the
first public hearings for the house intelligence committee, which would be the next step? >> i don't know. i think they don't know that yet, either. some of this, you know, some of this is still in court, for example. they want to hear from cupperman, the national security council staffer. he has sued both the house and the white house saying, what am i supposed to do? i've got this house subpoena that i'm supposed to testify, but the white house has exerted executive privilege and said i'm forbidden to testify. so, judge, you tell me, which is going to happen. the judge, by the way, will have a scheduling hearing on that this afternoon. but i think all that's going to do is ask for written briefs to try to make that decision. there's lots of this stuff still in court. there's an appeal now on whether the house judiciary committee can actually get the grand jury material they wanted from the mueller report. so this is all a long-winded way of saying, i don't know. >> what happens to the president's lawyers? where and how do they get to participate going forward, pete? >> well, the house has said that they will be allowed to
participate in the house impeachment proceeding. you may remember that the white house counsel sent a letter to the house saying, we're not going to cooperate with your investigation for a couple of reasons. one is, you've never voted on a resolution. presumably that goes away now. secondly, you've made no provision for us to participate in the house impeachment proceeding. and many people at the time said, well, why would you? this is like a grand jury. the only place for the president's lawyers would be in the senate trial. but actually, in the past proceedings, involving both andrew johnson and bill clinton, there was a provision for the president's lawyers to be informed of the charges, to be able to receive some of the evidence, to question some of the witnesses. now, if you look at the clinton impeachment as instructive here, remember, that they based almost all of their work in house judiciary on ken starr's report. they didn't really call many witnesses. they sort of looked at his report. david kendall, who was the lawyer for president clinton was
allowed to question ken starr, but only for an hour. so it wasn't a robust involvement by the president's lawyers, but there was some and the house says there will be some such involvement for the president's lawyers this time. >> if we were to get to the point where the president is impeached, the senate convicts the president, what happens then? does the president have to leave office? could he pardon himself? the president has been having chants recently about 16 more years. what possibly could happen at this point? >> if any president has ever -- and this has never happened in history. no president has ever been removed from office this way. two presidents, andrew johnson and bill clinton, were impeached by the house, but not convicted in the senate, and of course, nixon stepped down before the full house even voted on the articles of impeachment that had been approved by the committee. but if any president is convicted by the senate, boom, they're out of office. instantly. they cannot pardon themselves. and the reason for that is the same part of the constitution
that gives the president the power to issue reprieves and pardons says, quote, except in cases of impeachment. and by the way, it's not appealable either. the supreme court has said, because the constitution says that the senate shall have the sole power to try impeachment, you can't appeal a senate conviction to the supreme court. >> jill, you were a special prosecutor in richard nixon's watergate proceedings. pete was just giving us a little historical perspective, but we're living in a whole new world. given what you did then and what you know about this administration, what do you expect the white house's league strategy will be, going forward? >> well, so far, i would say, they need better lawyers. because they haven't had what i would consider to be an effective strategy. they've started with the "it's a bad process," the process argument is completely gone. and by the way, it was never a bad process. it is what the constitution provides right now. >> can i just throw a "but," though? >> mm-hmm.
>> he basically had this legal team for the mueller report. the mueller report was wildly damning. and i would say in the court of public opinion, it worked out for the president. >> but that wasn't his legal team that did it. it was how the report was written and it was how it was presented through the judiciary committee, through the mouth of mueller, who stuck to a very arcane use of language, very stilted and very controlled. and so you didn't get the full picture. the ukraine, whole situation has captured the imagination of america. people get a shakedown when they see it. it's no longer just a question of, well, did he or didn't he do something? and he didn't do it directly, but it was people who worked for him. now they're seeing the president release a memo of a conversation that says, i said, but i need a favor, though. and it's right there in public. so i think it's really so clear that what he did is his voice,
he did it. >> but -- and i want to be careful with how i word this, given how bill barr has served this country or the president, since he's been in his position, could one make a leap and say, he sort of acts as though he's on the president's legal team. >> well, he definitely does, and it's actually before he became attorney general, he wrote an audition memo. let's not forget that. he wrote a memo saying the president cannot be investigated, cannot be convicted, cannot be indicted. it's all over. >> and i'm just saying, don't you think that really sort of works for the president? >> it definitely works for the president. and i guess if you consider him as part of the legal team, he's been effective. it's wrong and of course, new york state has said that he should not only recuse himself, he should be out of -- >> the new york city -- >> new york city. >> and i think that's an important thing to keep in mind, is that people are seeing the wrongdoing by him right now. and you know, everybody is praising durham for this
separate investigation. and i don't know durham, so i have no personal opinion of him. but if he -- >> the u.s. attorney in connecticut. >> u.s. attorney in connecticut who has been assigned to do this investigation of the 2016 election, which is long over and i don't know why we're still looking at it. but if he's so terrific, why didn't he say to william barr, i got this. you assigned me, let me do the investigation. don't ply to rome with me. don't fly around the country. i'm going to handle it. pit looks bad to have you on this, because then it looks like it's a political thing, not a legitimate investigation. and that's how i see it. is it doesn't look legitimate as long as barr is following him around. if he wants to investigate, fine. but let it be a legitimate investigation. right now, there seems to be no basis for spending money to investigate something that's been investigated and rejected as a conspiracy theory with no factual support. >> it's a nice shiny object to point to.
jill wine-banks, an msnbc contributor, pete williams is our justice correspondent. >> because jill's a hologram other times when she visits us. >> nice to see you and be in the same place. >> in person. >> if you saw the vote earlier today, two democrats in house voted against the resolution. congressman jeff van drew of new jersey and congressman collin peterson of minnesota. joining us from congressman peterson's district is nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard in hutchison, minnesota. vaughn, i don't know if there are any voters exactly where you are, because you look you're in a promotional shot from "field of dreams", but i assume before you stood in front of all that corn, you spoke to people. >> or "children of the corn". >> it's quite a shot. >> i am a child of the corn. on the other side of the street is where the people are at, ali, but i wanted to show everybody what we were looking at here on my right, the fields. because it puts largely into context why we are in the
seventh congressional district. we should know, when you're looking at collin peterson, this district covers more than 30,000 square miles in western minnesota. collin peterson is the chairman of the ag house committee. and there's a large cultural base. family pharmacy up and down through this congressional district. when you're talking to folks, they consider themselves largely moderate and conservative voters. so it shouldn't have been of much surprise that collin peterson would be one of those two "no" votes. but i want to let you hear from gayle and otto, two voters, a married couple here in hutchison, minnesota. and this is what they told us right around the time of that vote this morning. have you guys talked about this much? >> oh, i think we've had a few discussions. >> we do get into it once in a while at home. >> did you vet for president trump in 2016? >> yes, i did. >> did you? >> i absolutely did not. >> what about collin peterson, the congressman here? >> yes, i voted for him.
>> even in 2018 you voted for him. would you be upset collin peterson, the democrat, if he votes for impeachment? >> i guess not. >> it wouldn't change your thoughts about him? >> no, i guess not. >> why is that? >> well, i think he's got a mind of his own, but, you know, he's got to keep his finger on the pulse of his voters. and so if he thinks it's wise, then he should do it. >> even though you are personally opposed to impeachment. >> that's right. >> stephanie and ali, we talked to a number of voters this morning here, like otto, an individual who voted for donald trump in 2016, but is also a supporter of collin peterson. and appreciates the fact that he is able to vote as a moderate, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. the question is, when you walk into places like mccormack family restaurant, folks are reading these headlines every day here. and the question is, to what extent does voter opinion ultimately get the best of collin peterson? >> vaughn, thank you, sir. and i have to say, as a very urban
guy, identify often joked
that you are our chief agricultural correspondent. i think what happens when you go to cover a story, if you see agriculture, you just sort of go towards it. i appreciate that. we don't have enough of that on our air. that's where food comes from. vaughn hillyard. >> he likes the agriculture. >> and you like where the food comes from. >> i am conscious of the fact that it doesn't just come from the grocery store on the upper west side. i appreciate that we have reporters out there. >> next -- >> -- following -- >> -- twitter announces it's going to ban political ads as facebook takes a very different path. we'll look at both companies heading into 2020. and brand-new video from the pentagon showing the daring raid in northern syria. you're watching "velshi & ruhle" live on msnbc.
welcome back to "velshi and ruhle." fw twitter announced it will ban all political ads, a break away from facebook and youtube. during a series of tweets twitter ceo jack dorsey wrote, quote, we made a decision to stop all political advertising on twitter globally. we believe it should be earned not bought. >> joining us now nbc news senior media reporter dill
beyers. break this down, what kind of pressure twitter puts on facebook. >> there's quite a bit to
unpack here and where we should start is by noting that this is a very significant debate for silicon valley to be having, however you feel about the issue and jack dorsey and mark zuckerberg are opposed on the issue, there are no clear answers. on the one hand we don't want a world in which what we're seeing happening on facebook is happening in which the trump campaign can go out and put out an ad that is demonstrably false and gets attention and facebook doesn't do anything about it. the point that jack dorsey, the ceo of twitter made is how can we be saying that we're trying to combat misleading information, but if you pay for it, it's okay? now there's a side note here we should note, i would say, the vast majority of misinformation trump puts out into the
ecosystem happens on twitter, but this is not paid speech. that falls under free speech. >> or earned speech as jack dorsey put it. >> or earned speech. now is where we get into the other tricky situation f. we're going to tell social media networks, fast becoming the most powerful microphones in the world that they shouldn't engage in political advertising then the only campaigns that are going to get access to any political advertising are major ad spends more expensive. >> do you buy that argument? that is facebook's argument here. this isn't going to hurt president trump. it will hurt smaller, lesser candidates that don't have the mega funding that he does. do you buy that? >> there's a corollary with facebook's fight that oftentimes by trying to penalize people or
put limits on what they do you end
up benefiting the entrenched powers. that may be a conversation for another day. >> regulatory capture is a real thing. it's what helped all the mega banks after the financial crisis and killed the community banks. >> absolutely. for me the bigger question is for the last three years since the 2016 campaign we've talked about how we don't trust facebook with our data, with our privacy. we believe facebook shouldn't be dictating the outcome of our political elections. and yet we're saying mark zuckerberg should play a role in determining what's true and what's false in political advertising or what can and can't be said while, meanwhile, throughout the 20th century we've told broadcast networks they're not allowed to.
it's not what jack dorsey is necessarily right or mark zuckerberg is necessarily
right, it's a nuanced and important conversation. the question is, and we come back to this every time i'm on your show, at a certain point we have to turn to washington and regulators to say what are we going to do here? >> self-regulation is not necessarily the answer. always good to see you. dylan byers. we'll continue with special coverage after this. you are watching msnbc. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
it's been reported that there's a cyberattack on business every 39 seconds. ouch. i don't even want to think about it. comcast business has a solution. we go beyond fast with a cloud-based security system that automatically updates, so you always have the latest protection. phishing. malware. risky sites. it can help block all of that. get fast internet and add comcast business securityedge for just $29.95 a month. it's one less thing for us to worry about. comcast business. beyond fast.