tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC December 13, 2019 7:00am-8:00am PST
to exclude from trial? therefore, from the american public evidence. i mean, we're prosecutors, we are used to evidence. that's how we measure our cases, measure our progress. and if senator mcconnell has decided in coordination with the white house that it's going to be run in a particular way to exclude facts and evidence and witnesses an documents what does that make the senate? >> it is just an amazing point for you to be making. america's history is being an advocate around the world for the -- i think it is fair to call that a banana court, a banana republic, a kangaroo court. we used to be a country that helped bring the rule of law to other countries. >> so impeachment wasn't designed to be a trial like in an article 3 court but it was designed to be a process and a high mined one in which facts mattered. right? the framers had this fascinating
trial. you could have put an impeachment trial in the judiciary. they didn't want to. theoretically, the house, the house had the other job of sort of functioning as the grand jury and putt it in the senate and then eddie reminded me senators appointed and more approach to high minded individualism where people were thoughtful and process oriented. i don't think that's going to be the case. >> maya? >> one of the things that strikes me where prosecutors were also professors and there is something that we absolutely demand of the education system which is that our children learn what it means to understand what the forks in the roads are and which one to take. at the center of impeachment traditionally in this country, even though we have had very few, has been a real and significant debate about what that fork is and the
implications for the nation. andrew johnson, the first impeachment trial in country, a lot of that trial was fundamentally of what does our constitution mean? is this impeachable? why? why not? that's a legitimate impeachment debate. if we were hearing a debate about the impact on the impeachment clause of the constitution, the impact on what the standard should be for considering whether a president's just making a bad decision or a president is making a corrupt decision. those are the kinds of key kind of democracy debates that this process should be permitting. and instead, it's been so infected i think as eddie said so poignantly by the jaundiced lens that it corrupted the very notion about what this article of the constitution even means. >> donna edwards, chairman
nadler has taken his seat and we may not talk again until after this committee has taken a historic vote to impeach donald j. trump on two articles. your thoughts? >> i think this is an incredibly sober moment and i hope that republicans and democrats did take the night to reflect on what their responsibility is and i am moved by the moment because it doesn't happen and it shouldn't happen often except in the most outrageous circumstances in the behavior of the president and i think that we have reached that moment and we will remember this moment in history. >> let's listen in. >> thank you. judiciary committee will come to order. a quorum being present. having agreed to the articles of impeachment against president trump, the pending business is reporting the resolution favorably to the house. reporting quorum being present, the question is now in the
motion to report. pursuant to house rule, two distinct propositions, we will divide the question between the two articles. the question now is on article 1 of the resolution. impeaching president trump for abusing his powers. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler? >> aye. >> lofgren? >> aye. >> jackson-lee? >> aye. >> cohen? >> aye. >> johnson of georgia? >> aye. >> deutsch? aye. >> bass? >> aye. >> richmond? >> yes. >> jeffreys?
>> collins? >> no. >> sensenbrenner? >> no. >> shavit? >> no. >> gohmert? >> my vote is no. >> jordan? >> no. >> buck? >> no. >> radcliffe? >> no. >> robi? >> no. >> gates? >> no. >> johnson of l la? >> no. >> biggs? >> no. >> mcclintock? >> no. >> lesko? >> no. >> rushen thalor? >> no. >> klein? >> no. >> armstrong?
>> no. >> stuby? >> no. >> is every member voted who wishes to vote? >> chairman, may i ask if i'm recorded? >> how's the gentleman recorded? >> gohmert, no. >> i want to make sure. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. >> the article is agreed to. the question now is on article ii of resolution. impeaching president donald j. trump for obstructing congress. the clerk will call the roll. >> nadler? >> aye. >> lofgren? >> aye. >> jackson-lee? >> aye. >> cohen? >> aye. >> johnon of georgia?
>> aye. >> deutsch? >> aye. >> bass? >> aye. >> richmond? >> yes. >> jeffreys? >> aye. >> sicilyny? >> aye. >> swalwell? >> aye. >> liu? rasken? >> aye. >> chiapal? >> aye. >> demmings? >> aye. >> kari a? >> yes. >> scanlon? >> aye. >> garcia? >> aye. >> neguse? >> aye. >> mcbath? >> aye. >> stanton? >> aye.
>> dean? >> aye. >> pow snell. >> aye. >> escobar? >> aye. >> collins? >> no. >> sensenbrenner? >> no. >> chabot? >> no. >> gohmert? >> no. >> jordan? >> no. >> buck? >> no. >> rat cliff? >> no. >> roby? >> no. >> gaetz? >> no. >> johnson of louisiana? >> no. >> biggs? >> no. >> mcclintock? >> no. >> lesko? >> no.
>> rushen that willer? >> no. >> cline? >> no. >> armstrong? >> no. >> stubey? >> no. >> has every member who wishes to vote voted? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. >> the article is agreed to. the resolution is amended as reported favorably to the house. members will have two days to submit views. the resolution reported as a single amendment. without objection, staff makes technical and conforming changes. without objection -- >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> for what purpose? >> senate -- i give not. >> notice is heard. without objection, the committee is adjourned.
>> and there you have it. history has been made. the house judiciary committee this morning voting along party lines 23-17. the two articles of impeachment against donald trump. there was some debate in this committee about how many articles to bring. they settled on two. nine pages the original document. abuse of power and obstruction of congress. david jolly, your thoughts? >> the whispers of history around this president and his presidency became a roar this morning, nicole. a majority of the house judiciary committee has determined that donald trump as president impugned the office, impugned the nation and in the language of the impeachment articles that were just approved should be disqualified from holding any position of honor or trust or profit in the united
states. and that roar of history will now follow donald trump in his presidency. no tweet can undo what just happened to donald trump's presidency this morning. he was caught doing wrong by the nation, doing wrong by the office he holds, loaned for four years. today he was held accountable for that. the full house will have a voice next week and assuming they agree with the yair commit tee we'll see the president of the united states on trial in the united states senate after the new year. >> garrett haake is on capitol hill for us in this historic moment. i was following your calls for energy drinks but obviously something pretty remarkable to witness there this morning. >> reporter: yeah, nicole, when they recessed last night, the chairman said to go home and think about this and there was thought of us covering this the republicans to gum up the works more, offer procedural votes, try to dismiss the hearing but
going home took some of the vinegar out of the proceedings. this was always going to be a foregone conclusion how the vote in the committee would go and i think we saw that realized this morning. that does not mean that the fight over this is over. i expect to see at least a day or two next week of a very bitter fight over these articles on the house floor. democrats have largely given up the hopes to convince any republicans to come across the aisle and vote in favor of the articles but not true going the other way. still republicans think they might be able to peel off some of the vulnerable democrats in front line districts and make an effort to cast this as something damning to the democratic party in the future so i think expect to see next week republicans really aggressively targeting particularly the freshman members to try to convince them that this didn't rise to the level and vote against the articles on the house floor. we are far from done with this. >> you cover the whole building there. any reaction among democrats or
republicans to mitch mcconnell saying the quiet part out loud last night, that the senate trial is rigged an enand in constant contact with the white house? >> reporter: look. democrats are frustrating by this. mcconnell's feelings about this were no big secret but saying it on national television last night changes it a little bit. the president said he wants to have a fair trial at the senate and not participated in anything the house does and the house said the foreman of the jury is saying this won't get done. mcconnell is saying this for weeks, no chance that the president gets convicted. lately started to say basically no chance that any republican votes in favor of conviction. but yeah, look. democrats are frustrated. they would like to be able to go and present the case in a clean and straightforward way in front of the senate but that's not what they're going to get.
they will get the little bit of a shell of a trial here essentially. an opportunity to present the reports as they exist right now and then probably a up or down vote on acquittal or the articles themselves before witnesses are called. there is one wrinkle in this and if any four republican senators decide what they want to hear, this is a 50-vote -- 51-vote threshold. mike pence doesn't get to participate in this. if any four republican senators decide, you know what? they want to hear from a john bolton or mick mulvaney on the senate floor, there's a possibility but it is the slenderest of possibilities that we see anything more than a proforma trial on the senate floor right now. >> heidi, slenderest possibilities come to define 2019. your thoughts on this historic morning? >> we could just tell from the looks on all of their faces, nicole, that this is a moment in
history that none of them really wanted. no one knows how the politics of this are going to play out. for democrats, this is truly about the constitution. and for republicans, they say this is an unfair process. it's a good time to remind everyone that just a week ago 500 legal scholars, not just the legal scholars called before the judiciary committee, but 500 of the nation's finest scholars said the president did commit impeachable offenses and one feels against this process, jonathan turley of the republicans witnesses but listening even on fox news and ken starr's main argument against this is not one about the constitution. it's that this isn't bipartisan and that from a political perspective only bipartisan impeachments are successful. stick to the fundamentals of why we are here. democrats tell me it is really
not about ukraine. it is about us, it is about the united states and our system of democracy and that unlike anything that we have seen in the history of this country this president abused his power in all three ways that the founders feared the most. he abused it for personal gain, he betrayed the national security, and corrupted elections full stop. that is the democratic argument. >> we are lucky to be joined by nbc news correspondent hans nichols at the white house. we have lived through history together but none of this strife this morning the house judiciary committee voted on two articles of impeachment against the guy in the office with no corners. your thoughts? >> reporter: the president wasn't watching live on television. we know that rudy giuliani at the white house. we saw him and since you know the grounds so well, this makes sense to you. walking from the old executive
building into the west wing, accompanied by his son who also works here. we don't know and no one will tell us whether or not rudy has a meeting on the schedule with the president of the united states. we do know that president trump is meeting the paraguayan counterpart and we'll get a sense of where the president is on the next phase and i think crucially be able to tell whether or not he spoke with rudy giuliani, to what extent the president reads out of rudy coming back from ukraine and that rudy eager to share his findings. we may see whether or not rudy giuliani got to the president and if he is still the president's personal attorney. nicole? >> somebo many echos of historyh two generations of giulianis walking to the building that houses the west wing and the residence. what's amazing to me, hans, this
is also a story, no matter what you think of donald j. trump, the brazenness. the day after mueller testified before congress about russian attack really on the 2016 election, donald trump reached out to another foreign government to seek their involvement, their engagement in the 2020 election. any sense that anyone there thinks that the president has taken anything from getting caught red handed or is it all a story, again, and always, about brazenness? >> reporter: it seems it's business as usual here and there's a certain bunker mentality and been the mentality for if not the last six months three years. there's discussion on who's going to represent the president when this trial goes to the senate. pam bondi was on fox news pouring cold water on the idea that pat sipliani is the main attorney representing the president and kind things to say about pat but on all this,
nicole, gio bai go back to the president saying the team is me. regardless of there in the senate and the well of the senate representing the president, the president's still going to be his own attorney, own defender and whether it is on twitter, or whether or not next to a foreign leader. we are going to see what the president's latest reaction is here in just a little bit and i stress to listen carefully to think we spoke he spoke to rudy giuliani beforehand. where he goes after and whether or not he tries to tout this at least from the chinese side a completed trade deal because when you talk to the president's advisers on what matters for the re-election they're not that focused on impeachment. they'll mention it. they're very focused on the state of the economy and the extent to which the u.s.m.c.a. trade deal with canada and mexico and the trade economy and that's a crucial importance. nicole? >> if only they could get the boss to focus on the same things.
hans nichols at the white house for us, thank you so much. it is remarkable on so many levels that rudy giuliani is at the white house today walking, hans nichols reports, walking across that short driveway where senior staffers park from the old executive office building to the west wing with his son to see the president as the house votes on articles of impeachment. >> many presidents wouldn't want to be seen with individuals under criminal investigation. >> that's a great point. the head of the criminal division as doj put out a notice saying he would have never met with rudy giuliani if he knew he was under investigation. >> presidents are properly careful about the images. all presidents. you don't typically want to be photographed with folks who are under investigation or under indictment. not only are they together, this is the president's lawyer. i mean, in part because the president's last lawyer's in prison and much more difficult for him to come visit.
it is a bit jarring, nicole. now, the president is -- you know, mr. giuliani is presumed innocent and the president is free to employ anybody he wants as his lawyer and still somewhat surprising. >> i also heard in hans' reporting this white house civil war. pam bondi pouring cold water in hans nichols' words. why do they stay? >> i have no idea. outside of being in proximity to power, outside of knowing that no one else would probably replace them. these folks are just as -- as we said before, just as complicit at donald trump in making this all happen. i think i was sitting here thinking about looking at that image of the representatives voting for both articles and
thinking this is the death rattle of the republican party. right? i'm just -- this is the death rattle. and i'm just trying to figure out, what will be the funeral durge. who else will show up today? because this is the beginning. right? not the beginning. this is the moment that i think i'm hearing the last breath. right? so let's be clear. let me say this, too, really quickly. if the white house thinks that impeachment will not matter, remind him. they got wiped up the floor in 2016 midterms, 2018. they don't think -- >> they have lost every special election. in deep red states, kentucky and louisiana. >> if he thinks it doesn't matter, we need to point to the facts but facts don't matter. >> let's bring david jolly in on eddie's point. are you in agreement there? >> i am. you know, i think as we were talking earlier about this era
of post-truth and post-reason politics there will be an element of the republican party that remains very strong, particularly in flyover states where democrats continue to try to perform better. but what we have seen from donald trump and his behavior today with giuliani is the inev itability of the moment. they always wanted it from day one. the reality is it was donald trump's behavior that inevitably to lead to this. i think most people that covered it or watched it closely knew that we would get to an impeachment moment like we saw today. it's no less unsettling that it was inevitable, an unsettle day for the nation. the inflection point going forward looking past next week's vote and assuming the full house votes to impeach the president, will be what type of republican party do we see in the senate? what type of lawyers do we see on behalf of the president? the inflection moments will be
whether or not there is pressure on mitch mcconnell to entertain a motion to dismiss, not even go to trial. could pam bondi if she is the lead lawyer lean in and fox news lean in on mcconnell for a motion to dismiss this? presuming it does go to trial, what do you do with witnesses? in the bill clinton there were only three. the senators agreed to allow that testimony to happen behind closed doors on videotape. parts of the tape then shown at the trial. do we see a scenario like that? or do we see a full-blown abandonment of senate prototoco and frankly respect for the institution of the senate and see trump and mcconnell agree to bring the hunter bidens in? it will define this as a nation and senate and republican party. >> all of them will be historic. who better to talk to about all
of that than michael beschloss? your thoughts, not just on the history made, donald trump becoming i believe the third president to be impeached if it comes to that next week, but also, what's been talked about all morning and all week about the current state of congress. >> well, yeah. what we saw in the hearings is not exactly congressional harmony and civility. it gives you a very good idea of where the temperature really is. and, you know, yes, nicole, this morning the scene we saw, the committee vote, the third time in 242 years that we have seen a scene like that. and what the founders were always worried about was that impeachment would become like a vote of confidence, that if members of congress did not like a president's policies they would vote him out. those that voted for the articles they were saying that this is something that's crossed a constitutional line. and the other thing that
occurred to me is that the nixon impeachment although he never got as far as impeachment, because he resigned, that became sort of a template for this process in our own times. and the nixon articles were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, contempt of congress. hear those echos of the articles we are seeing today. >> we hear a lot of debate about what history does tell us and people say, oh, it was always like this. partisanship is in our blood, always been rough and tumble but where there's the distinction of ideology and what appears to be an inability to share a set of facts and then have a debate about what to do about them? >> right. very different from the time of the founding period. most of the founders really wanted a big, vigorous debate. they wanted fights because what was the biggest difference between the american political society they hoped to build and the society in england that they
were trying to different yate ourselves from? it was the decisions were made by the monarch in england and there were there was no conflict. conflict they wanted. antagonism they wanted but to be an ability for negotiation and compromise and for, you know, two members of congress after fighting all day to have a tankard of ale together. i don't think many tankards of ale were drank together with democrats and republican's i i hope so but you're probably right. >> maybe alone. >> i want to put you on the spot. would you just indulge me and tell me in your opinion, i know this is a hot take and historians probably cringe when asked to do this, how will history judge each party over the last week? >> i think they will judge -- history will judge each party as having an expressed itself in a way that's genuine to -- in
other words, if you were a martian just arriving and the view of congress what you saw the last week, you would have gotten a representative view. and one thing that was interesting to me was that another thing that's historically unique about this impeachment process, this is the first time that we have seen a president with a judiciary committee voting for impeachment running for re-election. and that caused something we didn't see in earlier impeachment processes which was yesterday an awful lot of almost commercials for trump in 2020 talking about the economy and what a good president he was. >> truly remarkable times. we plan to call on you early and often, my friend. thank you for spending some time with us. >> thank you so much, nicole. >> joining us now, california democrat eric swalwell, a member of both the judiciary and intelligence commit tees. i wonder if you can take -- i was thinking if you were a young when how a bill becomes a law
was popular and whistle-blower complaint became house intelligence committee investigation and then two articles of impeachment on the judiciary committee. just take us through the sweep of events. >> good morning, nicole. it's been a long journey and, you know, for years now in this administration many have wondered are there people of honor or integrity or who have courage on the inside who would do the right thing as the president so often does the wrong thing. and it was actually dr. fiona hill and lieutenant control knell vindman going to the lawyers in july hearing about this scheme the president was working up for his own personal benefit and then the whistle-blower who came forward to the intelligence community. and that inspired all of us to believe that if you act against this president to do the right thing you can stop him from
doing the wrong thing. and so, to anyone who wonders what does impeachment do to this president even if the outcome in the senate is uncertain, those individuals acting got ukraine the taxpayer dollars we voted on an they desperately needed and this impeachment process tells the president you are no longer emboldened to put your personal gain above the office that you serve. >> what do you think when you hear mitch mcconnell describe the senate trial as you just did as uncertain but certain, rigged, coordinated and worked out predetermined between a round the clock open line of communication between mitch mcconnell and the white house counsel? >> the american people deserve a fair trial in the senate. and as a former prosecutor, it's pretty hard to get a fair trial if the defendant and the foreperson of the jury work together. i'll show more respect to the potential jurors than the
majority leader is showing to this process and not prejudge what they will do. i believe that facts matter, that the oath to the constitution matters and not just talking about any person in america jeopardizing national security but the person who's most responsible to protect both of those very important values of ours, the president of the united states and it's important he is held accountable. >> you talked about fiona hill. he was an nsc staffer who got the nation's attention, including some of the most prominent voices on fox news talking about realizing where the operation was being directed when she saw gordon sondland testify that he was directed by the president to work with rudy giuliani. how do you keep the witness testimony that takes us out of -- with all due respect, what appears to be a pretty brokenness partisanship back on
capitol hill, how do you put it back to the witnesses? >> when you listen to the witness and the witness at the top of the list, most helpful, is president trump's own words, and then his chief of staff mick mulvaney saying that the president told him to withhold the aid unless the ukrainians investigated the 2016 election, there's not much in dispute that rudy giuliani sought to smear and clear an anti-corruption ambassador, the president withheld the aid. he conditioned a white house meeting on the aid as ambassador sondland said. everyone who had any sense of integrity and doing the right thing like lieutenant colonel vindman was bothered by what the president was doing and has to matter and elevate those individuals over the conduct of the president and i'm sure most americans rather associate themselves with those people of honor doing the right thing rath rather than the president of the united states who continues to
do the wrong thing. >> tell us something of the last 24 hours. did you spell each other? we have bins of candy we pass around when our mics are down. tell us something about what it's really like to sit in that hearing room and it sounds like you all hate each other. what is it actually like sitting in there with the democrats making arguments that feel like they exist in a totally alternate universe from the things that the republicans are saying? >> my goal was to speak to my colleagues constituents because it didn't seem that the arguments and the duty we had was really landing on my colleagues and -- but the constituents will be heard and know right from wrong and a leopard doesn't change the spots and it was really speaking to that point and hoping their constituents call the members of congress to say he is still doing this and if we do nothing he'll keep doing this and what happened just behind the committee room. we would have breaks and our
chairman would remind us of the solemnity of the moment and thank us and our staff who work so hard on this for just staying focused. i think you saw a serious effort on our side to stay focused in that we did this out of conviction and love for our country and on the other side you saw not a defense of what the president did, just attacks on process and a real denial about what their acceptance of the president's conduct means for the future of our country. >> congressman swalwell, thank you for spending some time with us. get some rest. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> we are waiting for the chairman of that committee, chairman nadler, to head to the microphones. we'll take that when he starts talking. but you know, i am so curious about what david jolly's talking about, michael beschloss is talking about.
i gave congressman swalwell an opening to say in private we understand we're advocating for different ideologies. that is not what is happening. one side you saw this with the fisa report. christopher wray saw the good and the bad. the horrible mistakes made be the process. the incredibly good news no m matter where you stand there was no conspiracy into the investigation into russia's attack properly predicated. the divide now between people who heard fiona hill and lieutenant colonel vindman and said the president abused the power and people who said nothing against those witnesses and threw spaghetti against the wall all day. >> it's fascinating. i was going to hamilton because as chuck was mentioning earlier about this notion -- >> i was watching "top chef." >> i would have been better off watching "top chef" probably and
might need a few knives. but i think this notion of hamilton worrying about this notion of parties of acromony and said one poertd is more powerful than another an puts aside questions of innocence and guilt. and that really was something he was concerned about and to chuck's point earlier, thought they were designing a process that despite that fear divying up these issues between the house and the senate would help control that and what's so interesting here is i think there's an ideological debate but not honestly and the ideological debate is is the president more powerful than congress or not? that's really the debate. congress approved the funding of military aid. and the agencies underneath the president said, yes, we're good
here. sufficient progress on corruption. and then, the president intercedes, no debate about whether donald trump froze those funds. none. no debate about whether donald trump said, no, i am not going to give a meeting to the president of the ukraine. and then, and then, this obstruction case where literally the president and we may learn today whether or not the supreme court is going to hear the cases about donald trump shielding his financial records and his tax return. we may hear that today. but this fundamentally -- >> if it's friday we need seven head loins to choose from. right? >> it is friday the 13th. we may get another one but an important issue. the courts are the only thing standing between us and an ideological divide around whether the -- this republican party decides that the president is more powerful than congress. >> above the law. we are lucky to be joined now by
nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent, the anchor andrea mitchell reports, my friend, andrea mitchell. i think all about what we know and the people you have been covering, the diplomats, the ambassadors, the people who represent this country around the world. i asked congressman swalwell how to take the compelling testimony from fiona hill and the revelations from gordon sondland and make them the story again because it seemed like for democrats and people concerned about the president asking ukraine to open the investigations, their strongest argument are the people that saw him do that and that have no political orientation in any of this. >> and the fallout for our diplomacy, now exposed, is the really inside story of how president trump was pressuring this very vulnerable, newly elected leader in ukraine and siding with vladimir putin.
it really all does go back to russia as nancy pelosi said. all roads lead to putin. it does all lead to putin. only this week we saw lavrov, you know, a foreign minister, getting an audience in the oval office, with a president, a head of state, usually don't happen in the world of diplomacy and the day the articles of impeachment coming up first before house judiciary. for that to be happening, it was such a signal, the day after putin and zelensky met in paris with zelensky having very little leverage. i see that jerry nadler is there at the microphones, nicole. >> let's listen. >> let's go. >> okay. today, today is a solemn and sad day. for the third time in a little over a century and a half, the house judiciary committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president.
for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the house will act expeditiously. thank you. >> mr. chairman -- >> that was it. we were talking to andrea mitchell before chairman nadler made very brief comments. andrea, pick up on your point. any thoughts of chairman nadler? two very different chairmen with a chand hand in this. i'm sure they're both done with the -- glad they're done with their pieces of this. >> there's no victory lap here. we were all walking last night as doug collins exploded crawlicalling this crap and calling it bush league. he was angry that nadler outmaneuvered him on procedural
grounds and no amendments today and to his great shock and surprise said that they were holding on the vote because they were not going to open themselves up to being accused to voting on articles of impeachment in the midnight hour in the dark of no -- you know, no coverage. and so, they did get blindsided and that's why you saw today no procedural moments. there were no efforts by collins and the republicans because there was no ability to amend and everyone is exhausted and i think it's friday and christmas holiday time and they were really -- they had planes to catch but nadler is also i think following the prescription of nancy pelosi. there is no joy in any of this. whatever they may feel privately they're taking this as seriously as frankly it warrants historically and constitutionally. >> can i ask you to come back and what we were talking about before we went to break? >> you bet. >> you put down i think some really important world events
and i think the point was made by witnesses like ambassador taylor who left ukraine to come and testify in the house intelligence committee's investigation who said ukrainians died this week at the hands of russians. this is about american national security. this is about america trying or supposed to stand with the good guys, in this case that's ukraine. that's in dispute at fox but u.s. stated written policy that the battle between russia and ukraine we are aligned with ukraine. and over and over and over again, there are no new stories in the trump presidency. over and over and over again trump weakens russia's adversaries who happen to be our allies. talk about what that looks like now three years in. >> it just feels awful. you know? i covered eight years of ronald reagan. the cold war. the first summits with gorbachev. the end of the cold war.
these were huge stakes and bipartisan policies that traversed democrats and republican presidencies. and to see now people like lindsey graham and others just completely folding and caving in on the issue of russia when there was bipartisan support for ukraine and bipartisan opposition to what vladimir putin is doing, what we did see yesterday interestingly or the day before was tim kaine's bipartisan resolution in senate foreign relations that the president has to know entry into nato is a treaty. he cannot unilaterally get out of nato as he's privately and publicly threatened to do at nato meetings and passed a resolution which will now potentially get to the senate floor and actually have a vote which would be that the president has to come back to congress before getting out of nato so there's all of that but already, of course, the weakening of the american presence in nato as was pointed
out. vladimir putin is the winner on all sides and when we referred recently just a few minutes ago rather to lavrov being in the oval office on tuesday, and a photo being put out by the white house, grinning there, this time at least no russian state media coverage as 201 in may. but it was back then that the president disclosed code word secret intelligence from one of our closest allies on isis to the russians leading actually to the withdrawal of the closest, most important russian spy, asset that we had in moscow to withdraw that person for that person's own safety. out of fear that that was also going tock disclosed by this president. so we have seen just a -- so much turmoil in our own intelligence community. the president on monday night in hershey, pennsylvania, calling the fbi scum because of his
misreading of the inspector general report. all of this weakens our counterintelligence efforts and affects the morale potentially, these are professionals and they try to ignore it, but ultimately it does affect our law enforcement officials and our intelligence agencies on some profound level if not the recruitment of future officials and most profoundly what i'm dispressed about is what's happening in the state department. william burns and niklas burns and others, bill burns is a nonpartisan. former deputy of state and said he's never seen nick like this since the mccarthy era because michael pompeo for whatever reasons is not defending v vonavich. >> john mccain used the bully pulpit to call vladimir putin a
murderous thug and graham used to stand next to him. mitt romney called russia the greatest geo political threat to america in 2012 and senator, republican senator bob corker pushed hard for the sanctions against russia over the objections public and private of this president. the republican party has collapsed on the question of russia as a threat to u.s. national security. >> and that may be the most -- worst of all of the things that have happened, not just the white house that collapsed but the republican party in the senate who really should know better, those senators. >> all right. so wonderful to have you. thank you so much, andrea. we'll sneak in a break. on the other side, what happens next. don't go anywhere. grandpa, can you tell me the story again? every family has their own unique story. give your family the chance to discover theirs this holiday season,
with ancestry. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more.son, so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. in so many ways. which cage free eggs taste fresher and more delicious? only eggland's best. which organic eggs have more vitamins and less saturated fat?
only eggland's best. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. why do wrinkles happen at the worst times? with new bounce rapid touch up spray, you just spray smooth and you're fresh and ready to go wherever you are. new bounce rapid touch up spray. bounce out wrinkles anywhere. too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely.
it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, it's just right! to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant.
common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. we're back with you. we've been covering this morning's historic vote in the house judicial committee on two articles of impeachment on donald j. trump. those votes coming down, as you expected, party line votes and now advancing to the floor next week for a full vote. after that, sometime early next
year a senate trial. on that topic msnbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill with some news for us. garrett. >> reporter: nicole, i was listening to jerry nadler's very short press statement. your comments that this is someone happy to be done with his job as a chairman. i thought it was interesting because he's not necessarily done. now the thing that everyone is really focused on here in the house and in the senate is who is going to be these impeachment managers. jerry nadler's single statement is probably not going to get the job done. you look at the way adam schiff has handled this operation here -- we've got some extra folks here this morning. >> we're walking, we're talking. keep going. >> here is the point i'd like to make, adam schiff has used every opportunity he could thus far to advocate for this position. he's been in front of the cameras. he's been giving extra speeches. nadler has done that less so.
in talking to democrats after this vote here this morning, i've heard from a lot of them that they see this has to be a two-front effort. they know mitch mcconnell has made it clear he thinks things on the senate floor will be under his control and he'll work closely with the white house. that's not something that has to be the case off the senate floor and this needs to be a outside effort by democrats to try to make the case to the public directly. you have to work from the outside in here so folks like schiff, who have been speaking more to the cameras, folks like jamie rascon may be more effective where someone like nadler, who ran a tight shift over the last 14 hours in the committee markup as was demonstrated in that brief statement to the press, not necessarily the most effective communicator. >> gary garrett, i want to say one thing. you guys are the real who are rows doing your job and handling with grace people who have
strong feelings about the press. especially on very little sleep. this is why i've asked congressman swalwell and everybody about making the eyewitnesss, the trump appointees, the career foreign service officers, the people who have the firsthand accounts, one of the stakes that this was life or death, black and white for the ukrainians, that there was no debate about who was holding up the money, and why? because he wanted investigations into burisma in 2016. this is where behind the scenes people like adam schiff and his staff can be helpful again. >> reporter: exactly. there's two way this is can go. if the senate wants to decide not to call witnesses, democrats will have a very narrow window to make their case, maybe flee or four days. if this becomes a two-week trial, you can see where the prosecution, the impeachment managers get four days to present their case, the white house gets four days to rebut.
that's a very narrow window. the effectiveness of the commuters on the floor of the senate and on cable television and their local news back home and everywhere else becomes really important. they're going to have to tell the stories instead of a bill taylor or instead of alexander vindman. if you get those witnesses on the floor, there's a vocal debate about this. if you're a democrat, do you think it's more valuable to get a vindman or if you're lucky a pompeo or a bolton f the trade offer is you'll see the white house pursue aggressively getting hunter biden on the floor or continue to unmask and get testimony from the whistle-blower on the floor? everyone is doing the algebra here and trying to solve for what's the better outcome for your side. do democrats want to take that ris snk do they think they can peel off 20 republicans, an enormously difficult challenge if they get those witnesses or do they try to make the
narrowest of arguments possible rather than risk the republican side getting to call their two or three witnesses and having that be more damaging to their argument or to the broader effort to remove president trump in november if you can't do it on the floor of the senate in january. >> i think the headline here, garrett, is there's still a lot of unknown decision trees, that you're really talking about both sides being at a fork in the road about which way this senate trial goes. do you go deep, do you take the risk which sounds like it exists for both sides in putting back some of your most compelling fact witnesses about holding up the aid in the white house meeting which, for the record, the white house meeting still hasn't happened even though lavrov was back in the oval this week smiling broadly. but is the tradeoff someone that fuels some of the wackiest conspiracy theories on the right. again, my friend, in your ability to multitask, thank you
for spending time with us. come on back any time. it goes to something we've been talking about, and i know you had some thoughts about who is holding the cards. there has been an open question about whether or not congress is -- not whether or not they have the authority, but are they seizing their authority to compel witnesses and bring witnesses to life. >> earlier maya asked a very important question. i wish i was half as eloquent as you. >> we all do. it's because she's reading important things and not watching reality tv. >> i'm coming the your house. >> maybe one of the reasons. her question is which branch is more powerful? really important question. we can see that not just in the contours of the constitution but in court decisions that frame and reframe some of these delegated powers. there's another important question. which branch is more willing to use the power that it has. there is no question. >> isn't it also, and for what
purpose? >> of course, absolutely. there's no question that the sole power of impeachment constitutionally resides in the house and the sole power to try impeachment recites in the senate. the congress have the whole power to remove this president if they so choose. in this case the answer to maya's very good question, which branch is more powerful, in this case it's the congress. are they willing to exercise that power? does it rise to the level of impeachment? do they, to put it plainly, care enough or will they make a crass political determination that returns the power to the president. right now all that power is held in the congress. soon it will be held solely in the senate. what they do with it, to what purpose they put it, to your question, nicole is critical. >> i keep thinking about the ghost of john mccain, not a ghost yet, the shadow of bob
corker, the shadow of rex tillerson. those three men said out loud, but no republican i see has the hand size to say donald trump is a threat to national security. full stop. >> the era of the republican party has shifted. i think the moment of courage, the greatest amount of courage we might expect from a republican senator is to make the case that is not proven and let the anger sit at the doorstep of the white house for not providing witnesses like pompeo and kupperman and mulvaney and others. looking for those moments of courage i'm afraid it's become a fleeting exercise. nicole, as we apply the long lens of history, reflect on this panel and across the nation on the founder's view of impeachment and the history of impeachment, i think we also have to take a snapshot with a short lens of why we see hyper partisan behavior in congress, why we don't see moments of leadership.
there's a more granular policy to have on this on another show, but if you took a quick snapshot, it's become in the modern political era with a short lens, we have rigged the system to reward hyper partisanship, when we have brought in big data gerrymandering, when we choose partisan districts, where we have closed primaries that choke off participation by independent voters and the inability of valid access by independent candidates, and when we have a big money campaign finance system where partisan money flows through the leadership of both parties on both sides of the capitol, what we have in today's modern political era are actors that get rewarded for hyper partisanship. i think that will be informing too many senators' judgment, not the conviction we saw of the likes of mccain and others. >> david jolly putting into words what we are watching today. it's just 11:00. we're in new york covering all this, watching all this with you. all