traditions, themselves proved willing to trample our constitutional order to get their way. it is long past time for washington to get a little perspective. president trump is not the first president with a populace streak, not the first to make entrenched elites uncomfortable. he's certainly not the first president to speak bluntly, to mistrust the administrative state or to wrinkle an elected bureaucrat. he's not the first president to assert the constitutional privileges of his office rather than roll over when congress demands unlimited, sensitive information. none of these things, none of them, is unprecedented. i'll tell you what would be

unprecedented. it will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the senate hands the house of representatives a new partisan vote of no confidence. that the founders intentionally withheld, destroying the independence of the presidency. it will be unprecedented if we agree that any future house that dislikes any future president can rush through an unfair inquiry, skip the legal system and paralyze the senate with a trial. the house could do that at will understand this president. it will be unprecedented if the senate says secondhand and thirdhand testimony from unelected civil servants is enough to overturn the people's vote. it will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the senate agrees to set the bar this low forever.

it is clear what this moment requires. it requires the senate to fulfill our founding purpose. the framers built the state to provide stability, to take the long view, of our republic, to safeguard institutions from the momentary hysteria that sometimes consumes our politics. to keep partisan passions from boiling over. the senate exists for moments like this. that's why this body has the ultimate say in impeachments. the framers knew the house would be too vulnerable to transient passions and violent -- they

needed a body that would consider legal questions about what has been proven and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires. hamilton said explicitly in federalist 65, that impeachment involves not just legal questions, but inherently political judgments about what outcome best serves the nation. the house can't do both. the courts can't do both. this is as grave an assignment as the constitution gives to any branch of government and the framers knew only the senate could handle it. well, the moment the framers feared has arrived. a political faction in the lower

chamber have succumbed to partisan rage. a political faction in the house of representatives has succumb to a partisan rage. they have fulfilled hamilton's philosophy that impeachment will, quote, connect itself wet the preexisting factions and lift all their animosities and there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. alexander hamilton. that's what happened in the house last night. the vote did not reflect what had been proven. it only reflects how they feel

about the president. the senate must put this right. we must rise to the occasion. there's only one outcome that is suited to the paucity of evidence, the failed inquiry, the slap-dash case, only one outcome suited to the fact that the accusations themselves are constitutionally incoherent. constitutionally incoherent. only one outcome will preserve core precedence rather than smash them into bits in a partisan rage because one party still cannot accepts the american people's choice in 2016. it could not be clearer which outcome would serve the

stabilizing, institution preserving, fever breaking role for whiches the united stat the senate was created and which outcome would betray it. the senate's duty is clear. the senate's duty is clear when the times comes, we must fulfill it. mr. president, i understand there are three bills at the desk, do a second reading and block. >> the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time on block. >> hr 397 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth and for other purposes. >> i'm hallie jackson in washington. you have been watching senate majority leader mitch mcconnell for 30 minutes on the senate floor railing against what he calls the toxic precedent being

set by the house democrats after the impeachment of president donald trump. you heard senator mcconnell say if speaker pelosi ever does decide to send those articles of impeachment to the senate, which would be the next step in the process, the senate would be ready to receive those articles. the way that this morning is shaping up, despite the impeachment overnight, which was not a surprise, is a surprise today with speaker pelosi in a new twist suggesting she may withhold the articles until a time tbd until she gets what she and democratic leader chuck schumer describe as a fair trial. we expect to hear from the democratic leader in a couple minutes here. geoff bennett on capitol hill, kristen welker at the white house, on set a trio of people who know this building inside and out. antonio who served as press secretary to the guy you saw, mitch mcconnell, john is a former senior adviser to democratic senator joe manchin,

adam is deputy chief of staff to a senate who served to harry reed. mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer, a couple things we're watching. we're waiting for the response from house speaker nancy pelosi in 40 minutes from now, then she and senate -- senator schumer will meet privately after we hear from the republican gop leader in the house. we have a lot to get to and watch in next 60 minutes or so. to you first, i'll tell you, we watched mitch mcconnell for a long time speaking on the senate floor, 30 minutes for him is a lot. and that was, i think you can fairly say, an angry version of senator mcconnell that we saw. >> oh, yeah. that was a top to bottom condemnation of the democrats' impeachment process, says the process was rushed, predetermined, vague, and lacking criminality, which you don't need a crime to move forward with impeachment which is a political process but democrats say that president trump did commit a crime when he

sews his itted a thing of value from a attorney national. the reason you saw the senate majority leader there dropping rhetorical claims on the senate floor, house speaker nancy pelosi did not do the thing she was expected to do after the house voted on those articles of impeachment. so there were two more steps, right. she had to name the group of house lawmakers who would act as impeachment managers or prosecutors once the senate trial begins and she actually had to transmit those articles of impeachment from one side of the capitol to the other. she chose not to do that for two reasons. i o one, because the majority leader rejected a proposal from chuck schumer the top senate democrat to establish up front the rules for the road, the rules for how the trial would go, the four witnesses schumer wanted to call and have an agreement for that up front. democrats believe largely that as this trial moves forward, their leverage dissipates. they're trying to get everything they can up front. the other reason why pelosi is

hittings the brakes here, because mcconnell professed to not being an impartial juror and says this isn't a judicial process it's a political process and no way am i impartial, the senate majority leader. his number one goal is to look out for the republican in the white house and republican majority on the senate floor. as he was talking on the floor our team caught up with lindsey graham, president trump's other defender and the fact that president trump called him this morning what's up with the house speaker withholding the articles of impeachment. here's a bit more of what senator graham had to say. >> the constitution never envisioned the house being able to impeach the president and dictate the terms of the trial in the senate and hold them back at a time of their choosing. that does create a constitutional extortion mechanism that's dangerous for the country. i don't know what is driving

this idea. my speculation is that there's buyer's remorse, that the foundation of the impeachment is shaky. >> here's the thing we're all wondering, 30 minutes head of this press conference with house speaker nancy pelosi. is she going to hold these articles of impeachment indefinitely, impeached without the chance of having a senate acquittal. we don't know. it's an issue on which democrats and constitutional scholars are torn. those say that the process is inscribed in the constitution and you have -- schumer on the floor. >> i was going to say. let's listen in and come back to this conversation with everybody. let's listen to senator chuck schumer on the floor. >> the president of the united states has been impeached. the articles of impeachment charge that president trump used the powers of his office by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections,

not for the good of the country, but to benefit himself personally. the articles also charge that president obstructed congress in the investigation of those matters. together, these articles suggest the president committed a grave injury to our grand democracy. the conduct they describe is very much what the founders feared when they formed the impeachment powers of the congress. the founders in their wisdom gave the house the power to accuse, the senate the power to judge. we are now asked to fulfill our constitutional role as a court of impeachment. now that house of representatives has impeached president trump, the nation turns its eyes to the senate.

what will the nation see? will the nation see what alexander hamilton saw, a body of government with confidence enough to preserve un-awed and uninfluenced the necessary impartiality or will the nation see the senate dragged into the depths of partisan fervor. the nation just witnessed how the republican leader sees his role in this chapter of our history. demonstrating both an unfortunate dissent into partisanship and demonstrating the fundamental weakness of the president's defense. leader mcconnell claimeds that the impeachment of president trump is illegitimate because the house voteded along party lines. forgive me. but house democrats cannot be held responsible for the kran

cravenness of the house republican caucus and their blindness to the president. leader mcconnell claimed the impeachment was motivated by partisan rage, this from the man who said proudly, i am not impartial, i have no intention to be impartial at all in the trial of president trump. what hypocrisy. leader mcconnell, accused the house democrats of an obsession to get rid of president trump. this from the pan who proudly declared his number one goal was to make president obama a one-term president. leader mcconnell claimed that democrats impeached the president for asserting executive privilege. president trump formally claimed executive privilege. he claimed, quote, absolute immunity unquote. the white house counsel wrote a

letter stating simply that the administration would not comply with any subpoenas. leader mcconnell claimed the democrats', quote, obsession with impeachment has prevented the house from pursuing legislation to help the american people. leader mcconnell knows very, very well that the house democratic majority leaders have passed hundreds of bills that gather dust here in the senate condemned to a legislative graveyard by none other than leader mcconnell himself who proudly calls himself the grim reaper. members of the senate of the -- members of the 116th senate have been denied the opportunity to legislate by leader mcconnell. we aren't even allowed to debate the issues that would impact the

american people, health care, structu infrastructure, prescription drugs. weekend have spent a year debating these issues. we weren't doing impeachment. leader mcconnell has chosen not to focus on these issues and put none of these bills on the floor. as he reminds us often he alone decides what goes on the floor. leader mcconnell claimed that the house did not afford the president due process. the leader knows well that president trump refused to participate in the process, despite invitation and blocked witnesses and documents from congress in unprecedented fashion. leader mcconnell claimed that the house ran, quote, the most rushed, least thorough and unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. i know that that's the republican talking point but here's the reality, leader mcconnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough and most

unfair impeachment trial in modern history. his plan to prevent house managers from calling witnesses to prove their case, is a dramatic break from precedence. we heard about precedence from the leader. never has there been a presidential impeachment trial from in which the majority prevented the house managers from fairly presenting their case, to have witnesses explain their knowledge of the alleged malfeasance. leader mcconnell breaking president, strong arm his caucus into making this the first senate impeachment trial of the president in history that heard no witnesses. we ask, is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him understand oath. the president's case so weak that none of the president's men

can defend him understand oath. if the house case is so weak why is leader mcconnell so afraid of witnesses and documentss. . we believe the house case is strong, very strong, but if the republican leader believes it's so weak, why is he afraid of relevant witnesses and documents which will not prolong things very long in our proposal, four hours, for each witness. it is true, as the leader has said, that the framers built the senate to provide stability and to keep partisan passions from boiling over, however their vision of the senate is a far cry from the partisan body senator mcconnell has created. i hope america was watching the republican leader deliver his speech. i truly do. because most glaring of all, was

the fact that leader mcconnell's 30-minute partisan stem winder, contained hardly a single defense of the president of the united states on the merits. almost none defended president trump. because they can't. in the wake of an enormous amount of evidence uncovered by house investigators, much in the form of testimony by top trump officials, whom the administration tried to silence, the republican leader could not rebut the accusations against the president with facts. the republican leader claimed -- the republican leader complained about the process. the republican leader made many partisan and inflammatory accusations about democrats, but he did not advance an argument in defense of the president's conduct on the merits. that in and of itself is a

damming reflection of the state of the president's defense. our goal in the senate above all should be to conduct a fair and speedy trial. i have proposed a very reasonable structure that would do just that. four witnesses, only those with direct knowledge of the charges made by the house, only those who could provide new testimony, strict time limits on each stage of the process to prevent the trial from dragging out too long. it's eminently reasonable, it's eminently fair. a group who had no partisan bias would come up with this type of proposal. i have yet to hear one good argument why less evidence is

better than more evidence. particularly in such a serious moment as impeachment of the president of the united states. leader mcconnell's 30-minute screed he did not make one argument why the witness and document should not be part of the trial. president trump protests that he did not receive due process in the house impeachment inquiry. due process is the ability to respond to charges against you and present your side of the case. the president was invited to provide witnesses and provide documents at every stage of the process. he chose not to. still, democrats are offering the president due process again here in the senate. the witnesses we suggest are top trump-appointed officials.

they aren't democrats. we don't know if their testimony would exculpate the president or incriminate him. but their testimony should be heard. if the president's counsel wants to call other witnesses with direct knowledge of why the aid to ukraine was delayed, we say, they should be able to do so. president trump claims he wants due process. i suspect he would rather hide or name call because if he really wanted due process he could get it easily. one phone call, to leader mcconnell telling him to let his aides testify, one phone call to his chief of staff telling him to release the documents to congress, both of these actions would let the truth come out. i ask again, can none of the president's men come demend him

understand oath? to my republican colleagues, our message is a simple one. democrats want a fair trial that examines the relevant facts. we want a fair trial. the message from leader mcconnell at the moment is he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, no intention of getting the facts. despite our disagreements i will meet with leader mcconnell soon to discuss the rules but each senator will influence whether the senate lives up to its tutional duty to serve as an impartial court of impeachment. in the coming weeks republican senators will face a choice. each republican senator will face a choice. do they want a fair trial or do they want to allow the president

free reign. each senator must ask him or herself, do you want a fair trial, or do you want the president to do whatever he wants regardless of rule of law. regardless of the consequences to this great nation. the nation turns its eyes to the senate. what will it see? the president of the united states has spent the past several months telling congress it has no right to oversight no right to investigate any of his activities, that he has absolute immunity, that article 2 of the constitution gives him, quote, the right to do whatever he wants, unquote, the president's words. past senates have disagreed with such views and strongly, proudly, stood up for the notion that the president is not. democrats have done it.

republicans have done it. and often presidents of their own party. the senate has said in the past that the president serves the people, not himself. that he is not a king. will it do so again? will it shirk from that responsibility? if the republicans proceed with the majority leader's scheme to sweep these charges under the rug and permit the president to ignore congress they will be creating a new precedent that will long be remembered as one of the senate's darkest chapters. it will be remembered as a time when a simple majority in the senate sought to grant two new rights to the president, the right to use the government for personal purposes and the right to ignore congress at his

pleasure. here i agree with senator mcconnell. moments like this are why the senate exists. if the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors and the congress can do nothing about it, not even conduct a fair tribunal where his conduct is judged by dispassionate representatives of the people then the president can commit those crimes with impunity. this president can, others can. i have little doubt that if we tell the president he can escape scrutiny in this instance he will do it again and again and again. future presidents will take note and may do worse in the most powerful check on the executive, the one designed to protect the people from tyranny, will be

erased. this chapter in our history books could be a lesson about the erosion of checks and balances in our modern age or it could be a proud reaffirmation of those founding principles. this chapter in our history books could be about the overpowering partisanship of our times or it could be about the senate's capacity to overcome it. again, moments like this are why the united states senate exists. i yield the floor. >> you have been listening to senate minority speaker chuck schumer speaking after he heard from his counterpart mitch mcconnell. senator mike lee speaking now. it has been a remarkable morning, a new day frankly in

washington, with president trump now waking up officially impeached and this new twist in congress, both chambers really locked in a battle here over how these articles of impeachment will be transmitsded from the house side over to the senate side. it is significant and clearly there is a lot of daylight between the two key leaders you heard from, mcconnell and schumer. senator schumer says he and senator mcconnell will meet soon to hash out how a senate impeachment trial would look, but given frankly the bitter language that you have heard from both men, there's a real question of what that looks like. to help us, i want to bring in somebody who will sit on the jury, democratic senator mazy her ron no from hawaii. thank you for being back on the show. >> good morning, hallie. >> we heard rhetorical grenade the from your leader in the senate, democrat chuck schumer and from republican mitch mcconnell as well. ther to sit down and hash out some kind of agreement on a

senate trial. how confident are you there will be an agreement? >> i want to start by saying we have a president who believes that he can shoot somebody on fifth avenue and getaway with it. he believes that and his lawyers have made that argument in court. this president sees nothing wrong with shaking down the president of another country for his own political ends using taxpayer money as a bribe. apparently mitch mcconnell is going long with that. and the republicans in fact. it's what i call, he did it so what defense. all of the rhetoric as you call it, the rhetorical bombs by mitch mcconnell, is not getting us to the fact of what the president did. i call it the this. the republican continues to not want to face the "this" the president's actions of what he did. we are where we are and i hope that the american people will ask a very basic question, is it okay for the president to do

what he did using his power abusing his power. if it's okay, then this guy is going to keep on doing it as well as all other presidents going forward. >> you don't sound confident at all that there's going to be an agreement worked out. >> there will be rules. there will be rules on how the impeachment hearing will occur in the senate and however they occur there will be rules. at that point my understanding speaker pelosi will send over the articles of impeachment. >> this is complicated because the house rules are such that the impeachment articles must be sent over, but there is no time limit authority. there's nothing in the rules that says when that has to happen. and that's at the crux of this, right. this morning two house democratic -- >> right. but the question is when will a trial happen if at all. i want to play what we heard from congressman clyburn and steny hoyer as well on this network, two very different

messages from your colleagues in the house. listen. if it were me that's what i would do. >> is there any chance that articles of impeachment never go to the senate? >> well, i don't think that's the case. i hope it's not the case. >> very different perspectives there, senator. what should speaker pelosi do? do you think you as a senator sitting on the other side of congress may never receive these articles of impeachment in the house speaker? >> what i heard from speaker pelosi was that when the rules are set and they will need to be set because it is very clear that we these to have a hearing in the senate, when the rules are set, she will appoint her managers and she will send the articles. that is what i heard. anything to the contrary is not

what i heard. >> she said fair trial, right. she wants not just rules, but fair rules. but it's not clear what fair rules would even look like. is it possible that the senate may never get there with what the speaker sees as fair? >> as far as i'm concerned, hallie, she should send the articles once the rules are set. we can argue until the cows come home whether the rules are fair or not. >> two quick questions -- >> and then we'll proceed. >> couple more topics before i let you go. there has been consternation i have heard from folks on the democratic side of the aisle on the hill about mitch mcconnell's comments he is not an impartial juror. you have been vocal on your own opinions about donald trump as you have on the show just now. are you an impartial juror and have you made up your mind here. >> i am waiting for the president to mount his defense. that's what the senate trial is about. he's going to be given every opportunity to mount a defense. a defense is not him calling this a political witch hunt or

all of this other rhetorical stuff he puts out, i call rhetorical nothing burgers. that's not evidence. i am waiting for the president to mount his defense. mr. president, mount your defense. that is what -- i'm all ears. when he comes to the senate and mounts his defense. >> there is a possibility you could vote to acquit him what is i hear you saying maybe? >> no, that is not what i'm saying at all. we have on one side is all of the factual evidence on the house side that led to the articles of impeachment. we have that. we had taylor, we had even mulvaney although he didn't testify, we have all the factual evidence. what i want to hear from the president is, what are his defenses? does he have an explanation that exonerates him? short of that i'm going to vote on the basis of the facts and the facts are that he committed an impeachable act and i will vote to convict him. >> this is of interest to your constituents in the state of hawaii why you're from, another

member of your delegation, tulsi gabbard, the only member to vote present on the impeachment proceedings on both of those articles. i'm wondering your reaction to that? >> apparently she can't decide whether it's okay for the president to shake down the president of another country using his powers to extract something from the other president. apparently she can't decide whether that's okay or not. i've decided that's not okay. but i'm waiting for the president to mount his defense as i said. he's going to have every opportunity to do so. short of that, we have all the facts on one side. >> senator her rirono always a pleasure to have you. we have nancy pelosi coming up here in about ten minutes. on set antonio ferrer, former press secretary to mitch mcconnell, john cot, former adviser to joe manchin, adam, deputy chief of staff to democrat harry reid, corey

booker getting ready to join us live in a moment and then the house speaker and kevin mccarthy as well. buckle in. i need to get to you on some of this. senator mcconnell made clear he is not happy with the process. senator schumer is not happy with him and they're supposed to meet. the house speaker is withholding his articles for now. >> politics, isn't it shocking. we heard her ran no said she was impartial until she was going to vote to convict. >> she wants the president to mount a defense. >> if she does not vote to convict then i'm -- i think we know she will vote to convict. there's so much politics going on. nancy pelosi cannot demand anything from the senate in terms of process. she can try. this is a losing political hand for her. i mean there is -- >> doesn't mitch mcconnell not want a senate trial? doesn't it work in his favor? >> he's not going to be dictated by her. she doesn't get to make those dooigtss. kind of funny, house republicans

made a lot of process arguments against house democrats and they didn't seem to care one lick about what republicans claimed or said. now they get to go in and say this is how the senate process should be. that's fine but guess what, they can only complain and whine so much. >> devil's advocate, is this the only leverage that nancy pelosis has here and trying to use it to her advantage. >> nancy pelosi is trying to use what leverage she has to force fair treatment from a man who went out in public and said he will not be impartial. they take a oath to say they will do impartial justice. mitch mcconnell says he doesn't plan to do that. listening to mitch mcconnell speak on the floor the last thing the world needs are lectures on fairness and procedure for the man who held up merit garland. mitch mcconnell is trying to pretend he's doing a fair trial and holding up the senate and then goes on talk radio and says he's going to do nothing of the kind. >> the guy you used to work for

who is a democrat but very moderate and has oftentimes sided with the president. >> i think he's doing anything thoek not judge the facts or not look at the articles until they come over and figure out what the senate is doing. >> is this not a hot mess? >> both sides are doing what they have to do. nancy pelosi has some leverage, mitch mcconnell has a lot of leverage. i think they're going to do whatever is best for their members and see two heavyweights slug it out. should be a fun christmas and new year's. >> i'm told we're joined by maxine waters and i would like to get her perspective and stand by. chair of the financial services committee, we're glad to have you on this busy morning. thanks for being on the show. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> what is going on, is house speaker pelosi going to send over the articles of impeachment to the senate in the next two weeks or not? >> first of all, we just have to

recognize that something extraordinarily important happened on the house floor yesterday, last evening, the president of the united states of america was impeached. and we're just kind of, you know, letting that sink in at this point in time and i think that's where we are. there's a lot of discussion going on about how the articles are going to be transmitsd and i think the only thing that speaker is looking to is just whenever the senate is ready, and we're able to, you know, determine who our managers are and understand the rules, we're ready to transmit. i think that there's no deeper strategy than that. >> one of the republican strategists that joined me on the show so far, makes the point that this is undercutting the democrats' argument that this is such -- if impeachment is such an urgent threat doesn't it undermine the democrats' point when speaker pelosi withholds from the senate the next step

here? >> yeah, but the -- you have to understand, pelosi is not holding anything. this is not a strategy to try to leverage and get something from the senate, the senate has to work to put together its rules. traditionally, what has happened, is the republicans and democrats worked together to develop the rules to serve as the jury. they're in the process of doing that. when they're ready -- they have their rules she will transmit. >> you say traditionally, really only happened once. you had trent lott talking about the process of figuring this out understand the clinton impeachment. trent lott felt they had to rise to the moment and deal with the thing that has been put in their laps. given what we have heard from senator mcconnell and senator schumer, how do they come to the

table to get to what you're talking about to send over the articles? >> i don't know what's going on between mcconnell and schumer. i would hope they would work together in order to, you know, develop the rules. if they don't i guess mcconnell is going to do whatever he wants to do. the articles are going to be transmitted. >> and you are confident if that? you are confident these articles will be transmited? >> absolutely. absolutely. i just think too much is being made of this. the speaker wants to make sure they understand what's going on. we have to identify our managers to what the rules are and who will be the best to represent us. that work has to be done. the business about it being some strategy to leverage and all, that's just kind of like, you know, being made up in order to make it more interesting for some people. i think that we're certainly not, you know, developing some

strategy to delay transmittal thinking that we're going to leverage something. >> okay. i think fair to say it's interesting regardless. maxine waters joining us on this historic morning after donald trump has been formally impeached by the house of representatives. thank you. so as we wait on nancy pelosi, the house speaker, to come in front of the cameras and answer questions from our team and others, you've got president trump's impeachment set to shake up the 2020 race like never before, another line for the history books, the first u.s. president ever to try to get re-elected after being impeached. the 2020 democrats are the first to be running against an impeached president. seven on the debate stage in los angeles. a smaller group than we've seen before. we will get a better sense of the strategies. a picture of a shifting field. check out this poll from nbc news/"wall street journal" showing support for bernie sanders, pete buttigieg up since october, elizabeth warren down five points, tied with sanders,

joe biden still in first place nationwide, always put the caveat, no such thing as a nationwide electoral college. the state by state numbers that matter most. you can see highlighted corey booker at 2% because he joins me live from las vegas, presidential candidate, new jersey senator. thank you for being with us. i appreciate your patience on what is another avalanche of news as you can imagine. i want to start on your reaction on what has unfolded during the impeachment. >> it's a sad day for our republic that a president of the united states for the third time in our history is being impeached. this should be no joy. it should be a day somber for the nation. us 100 senators should take seriously our oath of office and the duty before us to be impartial jurors in the trial and conducted as such. we should hear from witnesses and conduct process and not have

some truncated version that's going to fall along partisan lines. that's not what this moment deserves. >> you talk about the importance of impartial jurors. you said the president was potentially violating the constitution, acting more like a dictator, do you believe you have impartiality here? >> absolutely. at the end of the day where my gut and heart wants, when i used to play football went into notre dame the last thing i wanted is for notre dame to be disqualified. looking down at donald trump and calling him out for who he is. i want to go into an electoral contest. if he has violated his oath, if he has really sought to assault the constitution, obstruct justice he should be held accountable and i will sit as a juror and listen to the evidence and vote in accordance with the evidence. >> that, of course, senator as you know, i'm not breaking news

to you, could take you off the campaign trail, if it doesn't start until later in january in 2020, do you believe speaker pelosi should hold the articles for her to get what she wants if she has leverage out of senator mitch mcconnell on the senate side, even if it affects the 2020 campaign? >> the 2020 campaign should play in no consideration whatsoever. this should be done in a non-political way, non-partisan way and do what is necessary to uphold the ideals of our republic. >> we had the trump campaign out saying it's raised $5 million just off of impeachment so far. do you believe that fight against president trump in the 2020 race got harder? >> i don't know. i know my campaign is experiencing an incredible surge from seeing us pop up in polling numbers, on-line fundraising off the charts. i'm excited to be following in the pathways of the nominees polling in the low single digits

and surnld to win iowa. the politics of the impeachment i'm setting aside. as far as our pathway forward i am looking forward to going in and being god willing our nomination to take on this goliath and take down this juggernaut of an overly funded super pac fueled person that thinks his money is going to buy him a victory. no. the people will speak in november of 2020 and i look forward to being the selected person to take him down and resurrect that obama rainbow coalition we need not just to beat donald trump but send mitch mcconnell back to the back benches. >> you will of course not be on the debate stage to make that case to a broader audience than our very large audience on msnbc. you've sent the dnc chairman the letter saying the threshold for the debate artificially narrowed what started as the strongest and most diverse democratic

field in history. do you blame the dnc for your campaign's inability to seemingly break through here? >> it wasn't simply me that sent that letter. every candidate on the stage tonight joined in sending a letter. >> fair to say you led the fight and you're not on the debate stage. people thought might be. >> will be on the debate stage in january. these artificial rules remember in december of 2003, john kerry and john edwards were polling at 1% and 2%, polling at 6 and 7. polls have never been predicative. the people are. that's why i'm so excited about going to iowa this afternoon where we lead in endorsements in the entire field. where local media there points out i have one of the two best organizing teams on the ground. poised for an upset. i'm grateful so many people,

angrily, many are sending us notes, going to corey booker.com and saying we're going to give you the resources you need because you are the best person to beat donald trump, states like north carolina and georgia and south carolina we need to win those senate seats i'm the best person to ignite that coalition we need from diverse voters to not only win a president's seat, but we have control of the senate as well. >> it wouldn't be an interview if you didn't work in a plug for the website. i think i'm out of time. talk about the importance of diversity. you wrote about that and other candidates in the letter to tom perez. looking at the debate stage on the one hand you have people saying not a diverse group of people on that stage tonight. on the other but voters of color are behind largely some of the people who will be on that stage more so than others. are you concerned with the lineup tonight or are you comfortable with that? >> no, i'm concerned. it sends a bad message the sense of unfairness i've heard from diverse communities about kamala

having to drop out because she wasn't a billionaire, more billionaires in this race than african-americans, these are all problematic things when we would have had won the last presidential election, it would be president hillary clinton right now. just the african-american vote what it was four years earlier in 2012. we need the best candidate to speak to the experiences of the diverse voters we have and i am that candidate and that's why i'm excited so many people are brace yourself for this going to cory booker.com. >> one is acceptable. two is a bridge too far. thank you very much for waking up early. we'll see you back on the show soon. >> live look in capitol hill where the podium is set for house speaker nancy pelosi to speak any moment now. she typically is a little bit behind schedule for these 10:45 conferences, but we expect to see her any minute. we're going to look for her answers on when she plans to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. chment to the senate.

i can't believe it. that sophie opened up a wormhole through time? (speaking japanese) where am i? (woman speaking french) are you crazy/nuts? cyclist: pip! pip! (woman speaking french) i'm here, look at me. it's completely your fault. (man speaking french) ok? it's me. it's my fault?

no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. (pterodactyl screech) believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line.

for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. crazy nancy pelosi's house democrats have branded themselves with an eternal mark

of shame. it really is. it's a disgrace. we have every single republican voted for us. whoa! by the way, it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached. i don't know about you, but i'm having a good time. it's crazy. >> we talk a lot about remarkable split screen moments on this show, but that goes down for the history books for this administration. i've covered it since day one. the president delivering his longest speech every at the rally in battle creek, michigan, at the same time the house of representatives was voting on two articles to impeach him. you can see the shot of the capitol, another split screen. we're expecting house speaker nancy pelosi, who will be holding her news conference. will she clarify the timeline here for when you might see some action as far as the articles being transmitted over to the senate and the senate trial beginning.

nbc's garrett haake is i think in the room. kristen welker at the white house. back with us antonio farrior, john cot and adam jeanelle son as well. i want to get a they can of what we expect to hear from nancy pelosi. >> reporter: the bottom line is we're in impeachment purgatory with the articles pass friday the house, no clarity on when or if they'll get transmitted to the senate. lawrence tribe, harvard university professor advising democrats talking about the idea of holding back the articles as a way to force the senate to allow for witnesses. and when the speaker was asked about this last night, she didn't really close the door on anything in terms of whether they would hold back the articles and if so, for how long. there wasn't expectation the managers would be marching across the capitol today to deliver them this afternoon. everybody in both chambers in both parties expected this to

start in january. it's got a lot of people talking about whether democrats are trying to press a tactical advantage by see fg they can put pressure on mitch mcconnell and if public opinion continues to be in favor of getting these witnesses, if that's the thing that could clean on mcconnell. by the way, a big vote on usmca, the president's number one priority will likely be the last thing members will vote on before going home for the christmas break. the only person who knows what the plan is going to be for the house is the speaker. we're waiting to hear from her this morning to see if she's anymore clear today than she was late last night. >> we're watching for that, garrett haake on capitol hill. you know who else is watching for that? kristen welker at the white house. everybody in the building, i know we've all been working our sources. one source laughed incredulously when we were having this

conversation about pelosi's next steps. what are you hearing about how the white house might respond and what comes next? >> reporter: the words of the day from white house officials, incredulous, you're absolutely right. insane is another one. hypocritical. one official telling me how can democrats argue they needed to move with al lackity and then at the same time pull this maneuver which essentially will stall the process. those are only month the talking points that you're hearing here at the white house. president trump tweeting about it, giving you an indication of how he plans to fire back at this move by nancy pelosi saying i got impeached last night without one republican vote being cast with the do-nothing dems or they continuation of the greatest witch hunt in american party, now the do-nothing particle wants to do nothing with the articles and not deliver them. clearly it's getting under president trump's skin. you talked about the rally that we all witnessed, the president making it very clear the stain

of impeachment bothers him greatly, but at the same time capitalizing on it politically to energize his base. on a personal point he drew bipartisan backlash when he took aim at former veteran, late congressman john dingell. he lowered the staff at half staff to pay respects when the congressman passed. last night he took aim at him and that's getting a backlash. take a listen to what he had to say. >> dingell, debby dingell, that's a real beauty. she calls me up. it's the nicest thing that's ever happened. thank you so much. john would be so thrilled. he's looking down. he would be so thrilled. thank you so much, sir. i said that's okay, don't worry about it. maybe he's looking up. i don't know. >> reporter: so president trump there seeming to indicate that perhaps the late congressman is

in hell. you have republican congressmen saying, look, he should apologize for that. he was talking about debbie dingell who has taken her late husband's seat. she tweeted, your hurtful words just made my healing much harder. president trump making it very clear that for him it's personal and no-holds-barred as he fights back. >> kristen welker, thank you. we're within about a minute or so for spoker pelosi. actually, she's speaking. we're going to listen in. >> we've been hearing from people all over the country in the last -- since last night and are willy this morning, seems like people have a spring in their step because the president was held accountable for his reckless behavior. no one is above the law and the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

no one is above the law. the president has been held accountable. it really is interesting to see the response that we are getting, bipartisan, across party lines. i, myself, want to say i have a spring in my step because of the moral courage of our caucus, to see them all -- so many -- 100 members go to the floor. that's all we had time for, to go to the floor and speak about our constitution, about the facts of the case so clearly, so patriotically, so prayerfully and so solemnly, but so definitely. just to get this off the table right away, we impeached the president. immediately everybody was on to the next thing. the next thing for us will be when we see the process that is set forth in the senate. then we'll know the number of managers that we may have to go

forward and who we would choose. that's what i said last night. that's what i'm saying now. the precedent for this, and i met with my six chairs after some of us were together for a press conference after the votes last night, we discussed the precedent of it all, and that is in the most recent case taking up an impeachment, there was a proposal on the floor put together in a bipartisan way, 100 senators voted for the process on how they would go forward on the case of president clinton. we hoped they could come to some conclusion like that. but in any event, we're ready. when we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over. that's all i'm going to say about that now. we've had a very eventful week. i'm so proud of our members and the -- really in some