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 eyes on capitol hill.

today the house judiciary committee in the last hour voting in a straight party line vote to approve articles of impeachment against donald j. trump. he would become next week the third president in u.s. history to be impeached. >> the question now is on article one of the resolution, impeaching president donald trump trump. >> there are 23 ayes and 17 nos. >> the article is agreement to. the question is now on article 2 of the resolution, i'm peopling president donald j. trump for instructing congress. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 nos. >> tess are lugs is amended, reported favorably to the house. >> second time i've seen it. it's still remarkable. >> we have to buckle up because it's going to get worse. >> how is it going to get worse?

>> there's a moment after the second article was approved, representative collins threw his pen and swung out of his chair with disgust and destain. the tweet storm we saw from donald trump yesterday was a pref foace to what we saw in th hearing. i think that gesture and what we saw from the republicans leads me to believe that we need to buckle up. >> donna edwards, you have stood before edwards seeking their vote. i've worked on a handful of campaigns, and i never met a swing voter who said, oh, i was on the fence and then i saw those men screaming and red-faced and i went with the republicans. do you think they helped their cause with the kind of voters they need to convince yesterday? >> well, you know, i think for republicans it's really clear they have just decided they're going to dig in deep with the 40%. i'm not really sure that they're interested in the eight, 10%. but when i think about what happened today, we know this is

going to go to the house floor and it's going to be another opportunity for democrats to make the argument in the debate on the house floor for impeachment, to set the rules so they can really control the process is a little more dignified than we've seen. but i don't expect that republicans are going to behave any differently. when you think back even to the andrew johnson impeachment, he was impeached, but twice he was not removed in the senate. so this process is not necessarily about the end product of removal. it is saying, by the people's house, that the president's behavior is unacceptable. i think that democrats have credibly made that argument. they'll have another opportunity. they're at home in their districts where they'll get to talk with their constituents. republicans will face the same. at the end of the day, i don't

know that we're going to move anymore republicans than we have right now to the extent any have been moved, but that is not the importance. it's about saying no to the behavior of this president when it comes to interfering in our elections, calling on others to interfere in our elections and really disrespecting the constitution by abusing his power. the people will speak next week on the floor of the house of representatives. >> nbc's hans nichols is at the white house. the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power around the set of facts donald trump has largely fessed up to and obstruction of congress, policy there is a the white house has memorialized in multiple letters from the white house counsel. what's the reaction today to both those counts? >> reporter: nothing directly from the president. we should hear from him shortly.

he's going to be greeting the paraguay president. we have two statements, one from the campaign and one from the press secretary. the press secretary one to me is the most interesting because it doesn't mention the word trial. the press secretary saying they look forward to the next process and to have due process and fair treatment, but nowhere in there is the word trial. that gives you an indication, especially when you add up all the comments this morning from pam bondi as well as mitch mcconnell last night that there's going to be no daylight between senate republicans and this white house. regardless of o who ends up representing the president, will it be pat sip ocipollone. when you don't hear the word trial, that's an indication that this could potentially, i stress potentially, be dismissed before it gets to that phase. >> chuck, is that something we've seen before? >> well, this would be odd. david jolly made a very important point earlier.

we shouldn't presume the outcome in the full house. theoretically enough democrats could defect and articles of impeachment would not ultimately approved. let's assume they are. senators must take a separate oath, another oath for them to sit in judgment of a president being tried for impeachment. you would hope that those senators, those jurors would abide do that oath, would be to listen to the evidence and render a judgment based on facts. the notion we wouldn't have a trial there is i think deeply problematic. they don't have to, however. there's a really interesting historical debate about who would preside over a senate trial. there are two obvious choices, the vice president of the united states who normally presides over the senator can preside over the senator the chief justice of the united states. why would you pick the chief justice over the vice president?

because the vice president has an interest in the outcome. if the president is, in fact, removed, the vice president becomes president. the founders thought bad idea, we'll pick the chief justice. in picking the chief justice to preside, they didn't give the chief justice the power to run the case. the senate always retains the power to run the case. in fact f you go back to the very first impeachment of andrew johnson in 1868 the chief justice was a fellow named salmon chase. very quickly the senate made clear to chief justice chase, when he issued two rulings with which they disagreed, they simply voted to overturn those rulin rulings. >> are you just grabbing a weak chief justice in this role? >> by design. a very powerful chief justice when he's over in his article iii setting. a very weak chief justice when he's presiding over a senate

impeachment trial. that's by design. if they don't want to call witnesses and hear evidence it's entirely up to the senate. >> is it still calling a trial? what hans is reporting is the word trial doesn't exist in the statement coming out of the white house today. >> when we think of trial, we think of the things we did in federal court. >> and i think of the oath. >> you think of something you've seen on television and in the movies. that's fine. this is called a trial, but it may be very much unlike anything we're describing here. >> do you agree? >> i do agree. i think when you think about what we saw even in the house on the impeachment debate, one of the things that makes that so much different even than a process of charging someone with an indictment and what we would expect to see at trial, you have constant checks that say is this fact, is this supportable, does this mean a standard it should meet to earn the trial?

and at trial, one of the things the judge does is make sure a lawyer for either side can't manipulate the jury, cannot bring in facts that should not be considered or which are not sufficient or which are prejudicial. and everything we've seen in this process essentially has become one in which the american public doesn't get that protection. it doesn't get the protection of saying wait, wait, wait, that's not a fact. that's an argument but not a fact in evidence. disregard that. we don't get that. so in this context of a trial, we would have that in a courtroom. we will not have that in this process. >> the trials that maya describes are governed by the federal rules of evidence and the federal rules of either criminal or civil procedure. so if you want to introduce a document in a real courtroom, there's a series of questions you have to ask a witness. was this document made in the ordinary course of business? are you familiar with the way records are kept in your organization? you have a checklist of

questions you go through just to authenticate and introduce the document. in the senate trial, you can authenticate a document by waving it in front of a television camera. so we use the word trial, but we're talking about something that could look very different. >> especially in the time of donald trump and his grip on the gop is i think what i hear you saying. >> heidi przybilla, we've been talking about the prospects of whether or not a trial is what comes next. what's your reporting suggest? >> reporter: schumer-mcconnell meeting is the first step that has to take place. that is required once the house officially votes. my reporting is that it has not happened yet. hopefully the two of them can come together on some kind of broader rules for the process here. if they do not, my reporting is that what happens then is it goes for a vote on the floor. and this is where everyone is focused on the wrong number, nicole. everybody has been focused on 67 votes needed to remove the

president. that's not going to happen. the more important number is 51. 51 votes are going to be what determines everything that happens in this process including the rules, including each specific witness that they want to bring before the senate, whether it's an open door or closed door, and that's why it's really important not to understate the importance of these vulnerable republican senators who now control the entire process in their hands. now, to start out, if they can't come to an agreement even on the floor, my reporting is what's going to happen is we will revert to the most recent rules that were written i believe in '86 for the impeachment of a judge, which means that each side -- they have six days a week meeting, each side gets 24 hours to make their case, 16 hours for senators then to ask questions which under that framework theoretically this could be dispatched of pretty

quickly. that critical question of witnesses and who the witnesses are going to be, that's all going to fall to people like susan collins, like cory gardner. mitch mcconnell is under intense pressure from the president. they're going back and forth now with the counsel about whether they'll bring in witnesses, try to haul in people like the whistle-blower, like the bidens. ultimately it's not his decision. ultimately it's the decision of people like cory gardner and susan collins. >> so this is an incredible picture coming into focus from the reporting of msnbc's garrett haake who on capitol hill is talking really about a fork in the road today. a lot of open questions. heidi's reporting point in the same direction as well as hans, kind of reading between the lines, if you will, of that white house press secretary statement where the word trial isn't in there. david jolly, heidi making the crucial point that a lot of how this goes and what this looks like to the american people will be influenced by what vulnerable

senate republicans want and need politically. i guess i want to put this in the form of a question. if 10% more of the country supports donald trump's impeachment and removal today than did in the wake of the mueller report, what does that portend for what vulnerable senate republicans might need from a senate trial or whatever word the white house is using for it? >> well, the majority of elected officials are motivated by their enlightened self interest. as has been said for mitch mcconnell it's keeping the majority of the senate. for gardner, collins, mcsally, it's about how they retain their senate seat and as a result what type of pressure do they put on mitch mcconnell to further his aim of retaining his role as majority leader. if you look at the clinton impeachment, once the house approved, which presumably will happen next week, all 100 senators met in the old senate

chamber with no recording devices behind closed doors to try to hash this out. the relationship between the majority leader and minority leader was a little better than than it is now between mcconnell and schumer. as chuck referenced, it's really the rule of 51. whatever 51 senators agree to dictates questions of whether or not to entertain a motion to dismiss, to table the articles of impeachment even before a trial, whether or not to entertain witnesses. the chief justice does play the role as an administrator. but the 51 senators, if they agree what is in the best interest of their enlightened self interest, their political treft, they'll move accordingly. if you look at merrick garland and his comments about making obama a one-term president, i think he will try to show some respect or esteem for the senate, allow this to go to

trial, but probably try to restrict the witnesses as much as possible. he does not want the hunter biden show. the question is the power of fox news and donald trump, do they push this narrative either to dismiss or bring the hunter bidens. that's a decision for mitch mcconnell and 50 other senators that would make up a 51-particular jort vote. >> and appropriately so, we end our coverage with more questions than answers. msnbc is continuing to follow this historic day in the presidency of donald j. trump, the official approval today of two articles of impeachment against him. my thanks to david jolly, heidi przybilla, the fabulous katy tur picks up our coverage after the break. it's tough to quit smoking cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye.

when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, side effect is nausea. 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, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

good morning. i'm kaltity tur at msnbc headquarters in new york. at 10:10, friday, december 13th, the house judiciary committee voted to impeachment articles of done j. trump. that vote came after 14 hours of bitter partisan debate, ultimately democrats and democrats alone on the committee settled on two articles of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the articles are now expected to head to the house floor for a full vote next week.

we're joined again by msnbc's garrett haake from capitol hill and nbc's hans nichols from the white house. garrett, we've been talking a lot about the process, about what has happened and what comes next. i want you to just pull me back and tell me what it's like to be on capitol hill right now. this is an historic day, only the fourth time impeachment articles have gotten this far. does it feel different than a normal day? >> reporter: ironically the vote itself was anticlimactic after 14 hours yesterday of debate that did feel like it was building to a very important moment. look. the two sides here have been so dug in really for the last couple weeks. everything that's happened here, bliel historic, was something of a forgone conclusion. but over yesterday in particular these hours and hours and hours of debate, it really did feel like we were building to something momentous.

most of the folks who cover capitol hill were not around for the clinton impeachment, all experiencing this for the first time. most of the members for the house side weren't here for the clinton impeachment. it feels like a historic moment and uncharted territory here. we can all read and study what's going to come ahid, but for those here on the house side, a brave new world. >> we got news that the rules committee will start the markup for this on tuesday. explain what exactly that is going to meet for the rules committee. will it be like what we saw for judiciary? >> no. i think this will be a much less valuable exercise. the rules committee generally sets the rule for how a piece of legislation will be considered or debated on the floor. we know an impeachment resolution will have wide open debate probably for at least a day. there won't be -- you may see

some effort to jam this up. the rules committee is probably the polar opposite of judiciary in terms of how they operate. judiciary in both houses of congress is usually one of, if not the most partisan committees. rules is a factory for adding and subtracting parliamentary additions before the real fireworks which will be important for a couple of reasons. >> i think the people drawn to the rules committee are a certain -- it's a certain type of person, not quite the same type of personality that might be drawn to the judiciary committee, garrett. >> i think that's a fair assumption, yes. >> i want to deal strictly in the rules. hans nichols, the white house certainly must have been preparing for this moment. they knew it was coming. how much coordination are they currently having with the senate. what in the world is rudy giuliani doing at the white house today? >> reporter: briefly, we don't know. rudy giuliani, we saw him walk

in. no one at the white house will tell us. when we ask what rudy giuliani is doing here. they say to the best of their knowledge he still remains the president's personal attorney. he could be briefing the president on his trip to ukraine, checking out the white house christmas ornaments and all the holiday decorations here. here is where it stands. we're waiting for the president. he's receiving the president of paraguay. it's likely the president will talk. most of his aides expect him to. he hasn't tweeted anything. we have the official white house statement in stephanie grisham. she's talking about a fair process at the next phase. she doesn't mention trial. here is why that's interesting. up to this point the white house has been almost casting doubt on whether or not the president will actually be impeached. it was two weeks ago that kellyanne conway was taking through vulnerable democrats saying they might not vote against impeachment. right now the line from the white house is they expect the president to be impeached. whatever happens with the rules committee on tuesday and the full vote next week, the white

house is presuming that president donald j. trump will be impeached by the house. we'll see how that affects the president when he responds to the cameras in a little bit. >> i think we can predict what the president might say. we've seen versions of it every single day during this process. briefly again, hans, pat cipollone, the white house counsel, what rule will he be playing in a senate impeachment trial? >> reporter: that's also unclear. he is expected to play a role as a lead attorney if this does go to the senate phase. pam bondi was on tv about half an hour ago saying that's way too premature, they haven't made a determination on that. it doesn't seem as though the white house has settled on who will represent the president if it goes to the trial phase. mcconnell and the white house is saying there's no daylight between the two of them. you can expect a coordinated response. >> gentlemen, thank you.

joining me chuck rosenberg, now an msnbc legal analyst. i want to go through all of this one on one with you. mish mcconnell was on sean hannity last night saying he's coordinating closely with donald trump and the white house. the white house's defense is the senate's defense, and there's no way the senate is going to vote to remove donald trump. >> it's not an analogy that doesn't work perfectly but it's instructive. if you were a juror in a federal criminal trial and we learned you worked out in defense with the defendant how you're going to vote and what you were going to try to do in the jury box, in the jury room with your fellow jurors, that would be deeply problematic, sfliet nobody like that would ever be committed -- >> can you compare that to what happens in the senate? >> that's why it's not a perfect analogy. mitch mcconnell, as the majority

leader of the senate and as a potential juror in the trial of donald trump has sort of two roles. they're competing roles. one is overtly political, senate majority leader. the other is pursuant to a second and separate oath he has to take as a juror in the senate to listen fairly and openly to the evidence produced at the senate trial of donald j. trump. >> what is the house coordination going to look like or the white house defense? they had been complaining that they weren't getting a fair trial. republicans said that the democrats were moving too fast because they hadn't haeshd from anybody. how could the president be obstructing congress? the white house in a letter through cipollone said they weren't going to cooperate whatsoever, period. they were not going to cooperate. that is unlike what has happened in past impeachments. the white house and congress have had some degree of coordination. yes, things have gone to the courts, but there hasn't been

complete stonewalling from the white house. >> now we're seeing complete stonewalling. congress, the house made a decision they weren't going to try to litigate this to its logical conclusion. why? adam schiff told us that the other day, it takes too long. it does take a long time. i actually regret the fact we don't have a legal answer, because this really is an age-old dispute, not so much between democrats and republicans, but between the executive branch and the legislative branch. >> why is there not a fast track to adjudication for these issues? >> great question. if you look back to the nixon era, the special prosecutor in the nixon case issued a subpoena for tapes and documents, from that time to the time the supreme court decided the president had to turn that stuff over, it was about four months. so it can be done. >> i'm wondering why there's not a sliver of the judicial system that says when congress and the white house has an issue, we're going to take it up immediately

and come to an expedited answer on this because these issues are oftentimes immediate issues and ones that should be dealt with in a timely manner. >> they're immediate, need to be dealt with in a timely fashion. and by the way, katy, they always repeat themselves this isn't the first time these o two branches of government have had this argument. >> and it won't be the last. thank you for your invaluable insight. let's bring in debby wie wasserman schultz from the oversight committee, the former chairwoman of the democratic national committee. congresswoman, today is an historic day. i don't think we can say that enough. that terms gets thrown around loosely a lot. this is the fourth time the president of the united states has seen articles of impeachment advances out of the judiciary committee and make its way onto the house floor. what is your 30,000 foot view of what has happened today?

>> well, first of all, katy, thanks for having me on. i think what this boils down to is we are here because the president of the united states has treated the constitution like toilet paper, like nothing more than toilet paper. he has engaged in an unprecedented abuse of power. he engaged in a protracted shakedown scheme to try to coerce a foreign country into investigating his political rival to benefit his own campaign. he has engaged in unprecedented obstruction of congress. there's no president in history that has refused categorically to turn documents over to the united states congress, to provide witnesses to give testimony. he has violated his oath of office, violated the constitution and needs and must be held accountable as a result. no one is above the law. and what is particularly,

particularly disturbing here is he put his own personal and political interests above our national security interests. and that is why congress had to act. >> nancy pelosi has to pick a team, if you will, for who is going to make the argument in the senate, the house argument for impeachment. you know this caucus, you know your democratic colleagues very well. you've worked with many of them for quite a long time. do you have an opinion on who should be on that team? >> oh, i completely trust nancy pelosi and our leadership, chairman nadler, certainly, as the chair of the judiciary committee likely would be an impeachment manager. we have some incredibly thoughtful and intellectual and expert constitutional scholars, and we also have members of congress who have been through this process from the beginning and have the integrity and communication skills to be able to make sure that we can get the

purpose of this proceeding across to the american people and also to persuade our colleagues that they should make sure we move forward. >> i just spoke about this mitch mcconnell sound bite last night with sean hannity. let's play it for our viewers and for you. >> we'll be working through this process hopefully in a short period of time in total coordination with the white house counsel's office and the people representing the senate. everything i do i'm coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. there's no chance the president is going to be removed from office. my hope is that there bont a single republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment. >> so we know what mitch mcconnell is going to do. we have an idea of how his defense might pan out. how are the democrats going to make their argument if it gets

to the senate? what are they going to say? what defenses or what prosecutorial arguments will they be making? what will come out of what we saw in the hearings over the past few weeks and make to it the senate? will there be new witnesses? >> let me just say that mitch mcconnell's designation of himself as a presidential toadstool is astonishing. i shouldn't be as as stoppished as i am, but he's coordinating with the white house rather than dealing with an objective neutral process. that having been said, it's very clear again that we have a president who has abused his power, who has engaged in unprecedented obstruction of congress, who jeopardized our national security interests, put his own political and personal interests above our national security and engaged in a protracted campaign to shakedown

another country, to investigate his political rivals to benefit his own campaign. that is the case that will be made. mitch mcconnell should be careful it only takes a majority to adopt the rules of how they will proceed. my hope is that there are, and i've seen there are members, senators on both sides of the aisle who do have integrity, who do believe they should uphold the constitution and probably don't want to be known throughout history as a toadie for the president of the united states. >> congressman, let me bring in chuck rosenburg who has a point he has to make. >> i think the congresswoman raises important points about what mr. mcconnell has pledged to do with the white house. i think practically speaking, there's only two constraints on him. one is his own conscience. that may prove to be insufficient. and the second, of course, is the voters of kentucky. he'll stand for re-election. if he violates his oath, if this

is overly coordinated and improperly so, that's the last word. >> chuck rosenburg, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, thank you. we'll keeping an eye on the white house where the president is said to make comments t. senate judiciary committee cleared the way for impeachment. he'll be meeting with the president of paraguay and i imagine he's going to want to talk to some cameras. we'll bring you that when it happens. you're watching msnbc. closure. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. we are people helping people. at to cover the essentialsyou whave in retirement,ce. as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.

doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu. ithere's my career...'s more to me than hiv. my cause... and creating my dream home. i'm a work in progress. so much goes into who i am. hiv medicine is one part of it. prescription dovato is for adults who are starting hiv-1 treatment and who aren't resistant to either of the medicines dolutegravir or lamivudine. dovato has 2 medicines in 1 pill to help you reach and then stay undetectable. so your hiv can be controlled with fewer medicines while taking dovato. you can take dovato anytime of day with food or without. don't take dovato if you're allergic to any of its ingredients or if you take dofetilide. if you have hepatitis b, it can change during treatment with dovato and become harder to treat. your hepatitis b may get worse or become life-threatening

if you stop taking dovato. so do not stop dovato without talking to your doctor. serious side effects can occur, including allergic reactions, liver problems, and liver failure. life-threatening side effects include lactic acid buildup and severe liver problems. if you have a rash and other symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking dovato and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis b or c. don't use dovato if you plan to become pregnant or during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy since one of its ingredients may harm your unborn baby. your doctor should do a pregnancy test before starting dovato. use effective birth control while taking dovato. the most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, nausea, trouble sleeping, and tiredness. so much goes into who i am and hope to be. ask your doctor if starting hiv treatment with dovato is right for you.

welcome back. as we see historic is a term thrown around too loosely. today it certainly does apply. it's a historic day for the country. donald trump becomes only the fourth president to be impeached by the house judiciary committee. let's bring in michael seal, former house spokesperson. adrienne elrod and an msnbc contributor and elise jordan former aid to george w. bush's administration and an msnbc political analyst. i just got into your frame,

elise. you have an intimate relationship or you know intimately -- intimately is the wrong word. you know some senators. i don't mean to imply anything. how do you think the senate is going to shape up? >> i wonder if the gravity of what's happening is going to sink in a bit more than what we're seeing reflected in cable news. the hysteria we're hearing from the commentary about impeachment. i wonder if once senators are sworn in and they take an oath to uphold the law of the land, and chief justice john roberts is right there, if, perhaps, some of the political theatre will subside? i certainly hope so. >> who are the senators to watch out for, michael, in your opinion? does mitch mcconnell have full control of the republican caucus? is it going to be 50 votes in a

senate trial to acquit donald trump? >> i think this process is going to be senatorial in the sense it will be calm and dignified, undignified in the sense that it will be brief. pleem be watching susan collins up for re-election in rain, mitt romney with a national political profile of his own, who is not up for re-election but has a stronghold on his seat in utah. >> cory gardner? his name is tossed around quite a bit. >> i don't think so. you said it exactly right in your introduction to this hour that democrats and democrats am loan are acting on this. cory gardner is going to need a lot of votes from a lot of republicans in colorado. those republicans are 80% supportive of the president right now. i don't see that changing absent a really big new set of facts coming to life. >> adrienne lindsey graham released a statement it's a sad ridiculous sham in the u.s. house of representatives.

this needs to come to a quick end. do you see a way for house managers to make a case in the senate in a way that would convince republicans to change their minds or are republicans beholding to their constituents and their constituents, it seems, at least donald trump's base, is firmly behind him? does that mean the outcome is predetermined? >> you know, katy, i don't think the outcome is predetermined, but i think it's going to be a tough challenge. look, if you have a house manager going to the senate floor to make the case for the house impeachment vote, you know you are messaging in part that 4% to 5% of undecided americans deciding the election in 2020. those are suburban voters, independent voters, constitueste fence. i want to add a couple names to my friend michael's list. i do think we should look for tom tillis from north carolina. he's got a tough re-election in

a battleground state that will be very important in the 2020 election. you have to look at martha mcsally from arizona, another republican in a tough re-election from a state that is trending rather blue going into 2020. then, of course, ben sasse has been very outspoken against president trump. >> he hasn't been that outspoken against president trump. he's called impeachment -- he hasn't called it a sham, that particular word, but he's been very vocally against impeachment. i hate to suppose the future. i hate to predict the future because we never know what's going to happen. if things remain on the track they're currently going on and if it's a party line vote, or if mitt romney or susan collins votes to impeach, maybe democrats decide not to vote for impeachment, i guess what does that mean going forward, elise? does it matter if it's a party line vote, or is this something

that's for history and it doesn't matter if republicans join democrats, and it doesn't necessarily matter if some democrats join republicans? >> the biggest indicator that i've seen so far about will any republicans join with democrats and vote for impeaching donald trump is congressman will hurd. if there was going to be anyone with a national security background, he served in the cia, he's leaving office. if he felt the wind of history were going in the direction of voting to impeach, he might do it, but he's not. if you can't pluck off congressman hurd, i seriously dowd you'll get much traction. >> it wasn't really a debate when they were debating the articles of impeachment. it seemed like the republicans refusing to engage with the facts that democrats laid out in previous intelligence hearings. they were defending the president, but not defending his

conduct. why was it not a fulsome debate? >> i don't think they have -- i don't think they felt comfortable engaging on the facts, but i do think these process arguments have been working the a certain extent with the public. that's the reason you're not seeing pressure on republicans to vote to convict the president and why i think if there is a glimmer of bipartisanship in this process, it's going to be house democrats in vulnerable districts voting to impeach the president. >> michael steel, adrienne elrod and elise jordan, thank you. here is jamie rascon of the house judiciary committee. he just voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. i should bring you into this. we're talking about the house judiciary, what happened yesterday. why did we not see, why did the public not see debate on the issues, a debate on the facts yesterday? >> well, we presented, katy, overwhelming evidence that the president had shaken down a foreign government using foreign

military aid as his leverage in order to get the president of a foreign country to come and get involved in our election. the republicans on the panel have no answer to that. there's no rival factual hypothesis. everybody accepts it. all the witnesses say that's what happened. so they couldn't engage with it. we tried to engage them on the question, well, leaving aside the facts of this case, do you think it would be wrong for a president to do that, any president, democratic, republican in the future? they literally refused to answer that question. they won't tell us whether they think it's wrong for the president of the united states to use his office to pull foreign governments into our elections. katy, understand, these are not just high creams and misdemeanors, the abuse of power to get this scheme done and the obstruction of congress to cover it all up. these are crimes in progress. it's going on right now. if we let the president get away with it, what's going to happen

next? will president zelensky be back? will he go back to russia who he publicly invited in the 2016 campaign to go and find the emails and they sprung into action later that day where they went to get the emails. is this going to be the new norm in american democracy. this is precisely what the framers warned us against. if you look at the constitutional convention, what the framers were talking about, they didn't want the president using the awesome powers of his office to go out and recruit foreign governments to interfere in our elections. why? because that belongs to the people. here in america the elections belong to the people, not the president and the voting rights of americans are diluted and threatened when the president is allowed to engage in this kind of misconduct. i was proud to have voted for both these articles this morning. >> what is your reaction to republicans issuing democrats a

warning, basically saying, if you do this, watch out for when we're in the majority and watch out for what it means for any democratic administration. >> you mean they might impeach a president for lying about sex, for example? i take that warning for what it's worth. if one republican had said, you know what, we think we made a mistake in impeaching president clinton for having lied about a private act, not public acts that threaten the character of democracy, but a private act, we think that was a mistake and we went way too far then. we think yours is a close call but maybe you're going a little too far, that would be one thing. that's not what they said. they believed what they did with clinton was correct, but they simply won't talk about the president's high crimes against american democracy today. that's a scandal that they're not doing their constitutional responsibility. and the president has declared liss conduct in this matter perfect.

in fact, absolutely perfect, he said. which means not only will he do it again and set a new basement standard for presidential misconduct, but he will complete this offense. >> congressman, i have one other quick question. do you think there should be new witnesses called in the senate impeachment trial? do you want to hear from john bolton, from mick mulvaney, from rudy giuliani? do you want to see a house manager try to call those witnesses? >> you know, i'm going to leave the question of the procedures of the trial for another day. we're not quite sure what the rules and procedures are that the senate will set down. and i want to be institutionally respectful of whatever rulings they come up with and not interfere in that process. obviously we were very disappointed that the president repeatedly refused opportunities to come, to send his lawyers to participate. he had an open forum where he could have come to testify to

us, but he refused to do it. so what the senate does i will leave up to the senate. >> congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much for joining us. straight ahead, senate setup. as congress gears up for the senate trial, democrats and republicans face big questions about what the process will look like. we're also still keeping an eye on the white house where donald trump will make his first public comments this morning since the judiciary committee cleared the way for a full house vote on veemt. at least we're expecting him to talk if past is any precedent. you're watching msnbc. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance

so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur.

tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options. sini wasn't sure...clot was another around the corner? or could things go a different way? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot. almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another, and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical

or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be worth waiting for. ask your doctor about eliquis.

if the full house does indeed vote to impeach president trump, the action moves to the senate where he will stand trial. the senate has held 19 impeachment trials in our nation's history. two presidents, andrew johnson and bill clinton, were tried and acquitted. the others were for federal judges, one senator, and one cabinet secretary. it will be house speaker nancy pelosi who will decide who will be a so-called house manager or prosecutor for the house's impeachment case in the senate trial. and for more on what to expect, let's bring in nbc news' digital national political reporter, jonathan allen. jonathan, we've been talking about this all day. it's still not clear, i think, in most people's minds how exactly a trial in the senate might look. when you think of trial, you

think of, you know, most trials you see in court proceedings. but the senate, the last time they had a trial was more than 20 years ago. what's it going to look like? >> katy, i'm so old, i sat in for a little bit of that trial in the senate. >> you're not aging at all on camera, at least, my feriend, yu still look young and spry. >> thank you, katy, i appreciate that. look, you're going to see 100 senators sitting silently for a long time, which is unusual in and of itself. you'll see the chief justice of the united states presiding in the chamber, unusual in and of itself. the rest of it is still in play. ideally you would have the senate majority leader and senate minority leader coming up together with a set of rules to agree upon but that doesn't appear to be the direction they're moving in. we're hearing white house counsel pat cipollone conferring with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell about what they're doing.

the white house is conferring with the senate ladder eader on trial might be set up. s cipollone was instrumental in the white house's obstruction of justice, writing a letter saying the white house wasn't going to comply with any of congress' requests. if he's discussing this case with mcconnell, whether there's any waiver of executive privileges that the president has asserted. >> jonathan allen, thank you very much. joining me now is new york democratic congressman adrian espaillat. the president is talking to reporters, calling impeachment a hoax and a sham. >> that's reprehensible. he engaged in abuse of power, he

engaged in obstruction of congress. when he went ahead and obstructed his officials not to come before congress, they went ahead and defiantly denied our ability to get them through subpoena, that's called obstruction of congress. when he went ahead and asked president zelensky to do him a favor, this was an abuse of power. >> the president says he asked zelensky to do "us" a favor. >> "us" is the u.s. he's asking for a favor to help him with the 2020 elections. this is no different than breaking into the dnc, gaming a system. it's an asking a foreign government to get engaged and give him an advantage in the polls. >> boris johnson and the conservative party just won in a landslide in the uk. people out there are pointing to

that and saying, beware, democrats, because this is foretelling what's going to happen in 2020, donald trump is going to win and impeachment isn't helping their cause. >> i wouldn't say that. things happen on the other side of the pond which are not necessarily descriptive of what's going to happen here. >> do you look back at 2018? >> elections around the world show the other way around, democrats are moving forward. if you look at the polls, many of our candidates are ahead of donald trump nationally. we look forward to the selection. i think we're doing the right thing by the constitution of the united states of america. therefore good government at the end of the day is good politics. >> you're back in your district for the weekend. a number of other lawmakers will be back in theirs. what are you hearing about what folks think about impeachment? >> they say to me, this guy broke the law, no one should be above the law, he abused power

blatantly and in a wide open way obstructed congress. now we see how the senate, which is obviously not having a trial by jury, is coordinating with the white house. this is unbelievable. >> do you expect anything more, though? mitch mcconnell is the senate majority leader. he's a republican, he's lashed himself closely to the president. they are in lockstep on a number of issues. would you -- i mean, he said the quiet part out loud, but would you expect him to be doing that regardless of whether or not he said it on camera? >> i expect mitch mcconnell to near to the constitution of the united states of america. >> mitch mcconnell didn't call for mayerrick garland to be confirmed. >> i expect him to hold tight to the rule of law and not to become the president's lap dog. >> let's put impeachment numbers on our screen before we go. i want to get your sense of whether or not you think this has moved the needle. much of the support for impeachment or the people who don't like impeachment, it's stayed the same during this

process. do you look at these numbers, do these numbers matter to you? >> no, they don't. what matters to us is the american people want answers, they want to know what went on. we must do what's right. we must follow the constitution. this is a constitutionally prescripted policy and not a political contest. this is not a political poll. this is about adhering to the rules of the constitution, making sure we hold a president accountable for violating the law, from one who obstructs congress and abuses power. >> congressman, thank you for joining us. that will wrap things up for this hour of "msnbc live." i'll be back at 2:00 p.m. eastern today, don't you worry. but first, "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. >> katy tur, thank you so much. and right now on "andrea mitchell reports," split decision. house judiciary committee dividing on party lines, sending the articles of impeachment to the full house for a vote next week. >> today is a solemn and sad

day. >> we're defending the constitution and we're defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. >> we're doing the duty that the constitution asked us to do. >> this is an outrage. this was a kangaroo court. outrageous to put the country through this. >> for democrats, impeachment is their drug. it is their obsession. it is their total focus. punching back. president trump's first reacting to the historic vote. only the third time in u.s. history the judiciary committee has recommended articles of impeachment against a president. and for the defense. rudy giuliani, the president's controversial personal lawyer, arriving at the white house today. majority leader mitch mcconnell saying he's got the president's back. >> everything i do during this, i'm coordinating with the white house counsel. there will be no