reporting from new york. yasmin vossoughian picks up the coverage right now. >> it is 11:00 a.m. in the east, 8:00 a.m. pacific. this morning, major political fallout on capitol hill as republicans formally launch their impeachment inquiry into president biden, hours after his son defied a subpoena to speak with lawmakers behind closed doors. meanwhile, new developments in the federal criminal case surrounding former president donald trump. why a new court ruling threatens to push back the trial's start date, even further, into the presidential election year. this morning in an unexpected twist, former trump lawyer rudy giuliani will not take the stand in his multimillion dollar civil defamation trial. we'll take you live to the courthouse and breakdown what is next for this case. as democrats are considering major concessions on the border, we're going to take you live to one port of entry officials had to close after being overwhelmed with new arrivals. we're also going to ask congressman henry cuellar what congress should do on immigration. hi, everybody. we want to begin on capitol hill this morning, where house republicans are plotting their next steps after voting to formalize its impeachment inquiry into president biden. the vote was along party lines, with all republicans voting yes and all democrats voting no. >> the house has now spoken. and i think pretty loudly, pretty clearly, with every single republican voting in favor of moving into this official impeachment inquiry phase of our constitutional duty to do oversight. so when a majority of the house goes on record in support of an official impeachment inquiry, with the power that resides solely in the house of representatives, this impeachment power. >> so republicans are saying the move is going to grab them this ability to better enforce their subpoenas in court. the investigation, it has focused on the president and his family's business dealings. so far, though, republicans have failed to put forward any concrete evidence that directly connects president biden to any wrongdoing. the president reacted to the vote in a statement saying in part this, instead of doing anything to help make americans' lives better, they are focused on attacking me with lies. instead of doing their job on the urgent work that needs to be done, they are choosing to waste time on this baseless political stunt that even republicans in congress admit is not supported by facts. with us to start our coverage off, ryan nobles, michaela gardener, ashley etienne and former governor john kasich and msnbc political analyst. welcome to you. thank you for joining us. ryan, start us off, i kind of got into this a little bit. talk us through if you heard of a real more formal structure to this impeachment inquiry, considering the fact they're more looking for evidence versus having evidence as they had with the impeachment inquiry that was launched into the former president. >> yeah, you know, yasmin, i think the stage we're at now is the three committees responsible for this impeachment inquiry now are in a phase where they have additional power and resources to collect all the documents that they're looking for, to require this witness testimony that they have requested to formally come in and sit for these depositions and collect that information. and then begin to streamline their argument here that the current president joe biden has committed what they believe are high crimes and misdemeanors and worthy of articles of impeachment. there is no doubt that the members of the committees and particularly their chairs believe that they're already at that stage, but when you talk to rank and file republicans, thy are far less willing to take that step. they believe more evidence needs to be uncovered. they were comfortable voting for the inquiry yesterday, because they're allowing the process to move forward, but articles of impeachment are a grave next step that many of them are not yet willing to take. and it is going to be incumbent upon these committees to deliver the evidence that would allow them do so. and the chairman of the oversight committee, james comer, the leader of this in many respects talked about this yesterday. listen to what he had to say. >> we have a simple question, i think an overwhelming majority of americans have, what did the bidens do to receive the tens of millions of dollars from our enemies around the world. we expect to have people honor our subpoenas, we want to wrap this investigation up. but obviously you get to the deposition phase before you -- >> reporter: what is interesting, when you li listen how the chairman talks about this, many times they say there is a different purpose for what their investigation is or different specific question that they want answered. it has been a little scatter shot in many ways as this investigation has played itself out. they're not going to enjoy that luxury once they move to articles of impeachment. they're going to need to issue a report with very specific accusations about the president of the united states that are backed up by evidence and if they fail to do that, yasmin, they put themselves in a political position where president biden could argue he's been exonerated as a result of this investigation. so, the next couple of weeks are going to be very crucial for republicans if they're going to make good on their promises as it relates to this impeachment inquiry. >> so, governor, in sticking with this kind of line of questioning and talking about how republicans here are more looking versus actually having, i wanto read for you a quote from a piece that chuck todd wrote about this. talking about the former impeachments of former preside donald trump with former president clinton as well. whatever you think of the three other impeachments, the conduct the presidents are accused of was plain for everyone to see. there was no doubt clinton had an affai with an intern. there was doubt trump tried to coerce ukrainian president zelenskyy into opening a probe against biden, and trump's speech on january 6th 2021 alone is evidence of what he hoped supporould accomplish by marching on the capitol. the point is, the conduct alleged in those impeachments was not really in question. the question was whether the conduct was bad enough to merit the political death penalty. if you are a republican, governor, in a vulnerable district, and you have voted to launch this impeachment inquiry in which all republicans did in the house, how worried should you be about your future inside of an election year? >> well, probably thinking about the base, but, look, what i'm concerned about is it is like we're a third world country now. it is like we're looking at some place in south america where, you know, you keep putting your political opponents in jail or you charge them with this or that, and it has been going on for a long time. i think back to the investigation, for example, before you were born, of caspar weinberger. there was nothing there. but it bankrupted him. we have been increasingly weaponizing politics. so i want to ask you a question, think about this, would you want to quit your job and go run for public office today? i mean, who in their right mind wants to go through all this stuff? and so i think the quality of people that are now being elected to these positions is not as good as it once was. and now every time somebody, you know, gets in trouble, somebody else, they're going to go find somebody else to punish and it just goes on and on. and it just damages our credibility in the world, it damages our ability to get things done. and so there have been many investigations, democrats investigating republicans, republicans investigating democrats, so now this one, i mean, it is like we're going fishing. so, we haven't caught any fish yet, but if we can go out in the ocean long enough and keep throwing our line, maybe we'll find something. i just -- i just -- it is just very disappointing. but it is kind of where we are on the -- in the political side of america today. >> first of all, governor, i won't answer your question, but politics is not in my future, my friend. it is not in my future, i'll tell you that much. but how do you stop the cycle then? hearing your frustration here, which i think a lot of americans feel now, how do you stop the cycle? >> it is leaders, yasmin. the quality of leaders in our country today, not just in politics, but across the board, has -- is not where it once was or where we want it to be. look, let me tell you another thing i think we forget. one of the primary problems, don't think i'm preaching a sermon, maybe i am, when we cease to look at another person and realize that we forget that they're all made in the image of god and they deserve respect, when we lose that, that's when things begin to fall apart. we start to treat people with hatred, we start to treat them like widgets, and that's where we are today. we look at our polarized country, and when you hear somebody tell you i love trump, and i love biden or whatever, think about the reaction from those on the other side. it is like we are not treating people with the respect that they need and want and that's why i think we're in this spiral and cycle and what i think it is going to take is i think it is going to take some sort of a wakening, where people like you and hopefully myself and many others that we know stand up and say knock off this nonsense. when i was running the budget committee in washington, i told republicans we were going to treat democrats with respect. we still got what we wanted, but i was liked by both sides. same thing as governor. show respect. you don't have to agree, but stop trying to destroy somebody's life and their career. >> good luck, governor. good luck, governor. i want to pick up on where the governor is leaving us off, and talk about kind of the white house strategy here. and how they don't want to necessarily turn this into a dogfight, but they're heading into an election year, this impeachment inquiry was just launched, we know where the president stands on this. but knowing how he wants to communicate when it comes to maintaining respect and not turning it into this dogfight. >> the white house strategy really from the beginning has been to pivot to other issues. as we saw the president lay out in his statement yesterday, he says he wants congress to focus on ukraine funding, border security, avoiding a government shutdown and just the coming weeks, but i think what is really at play here, especially for speaker mike johnson, is he's looking for leverage when it comes to securing border security, when it comes to securing ukraine funding, and pursuing this impeachment inquiry could really give him that leverage he needs with those far right republicans who have already issued sort of a veiled threat to vacate the speakership if they cannot extract certain proposals on the border. so, that's definitely competing interests there, but i think something that gives the biden campaign comfort is it is not yet showing in polling this is a top issue that is driving voters and that's hopefully what republicans are hoping to extract from this. >> ryan makes a good point, they haven't necessarily, republicans, haven't necessarily been focused on that they're going for, what they're trying to find here. you were in the war room during the former president's impeachment with nancy pelosi, working in her office. talk us through kind of the pitfalls you see here for republicans and how democrats should fight back. >> here is the thing, we had two things going for us that the republicans don't currently have. one is we have public sentiment on our side. 60% of the american public thought donald trump should be impeached. the second is we had evidence. as you mentioned, there is no evidence here. republicans have admitted that. their witnesses have admitted that. they're calling it a retribution impeachment inquiry that's happening right now. and so that's really the problem for republicans. they're reaching at straws. this is a tactic i saw them use against barack obama when he was running for a second term. what i think is the bigger play here is this really is serving as a major distraction for the american people, for the media, for us. they would rather us talk about a baseless impeachment inquiry into president biden rather than talking about the fact that trump said he's going to terminate the constitution, that he's going to lead as a dictator on day one, and that he's currently in court now for trying to steal the election and for initiating an attack on the capitol. both of those two things he was impeached for doing. they're trying to distract us. they don't want us to focus on that. they would rather talk about this baseless impeachment into biden, and i agree with the governor, it is a lack of leadership on the part of the republican party. they're leaving town without addressing the border, without addressing funding for ukraine and israel. it is coming at a cost to the american people and i want to quote my former boss, elijah cummings, we're better than this as a nation and it is going to require big leadership on the part of the republican party to really remind the american people that we got big things we need to get done and walk away from this baseless impeachment inquiry. >> yasmin, one comment here. and that is it is a lack of leadership across the board. let me just suggest to you, so the republicans are saying they want some changes so we have border security. maybe they're asking for things that are extreme, but i notice the administration's beginning to say, oh, yeah, maybe we can do something there. we got do something about the border. and it takes leadership on both sides to do it. on the republican side, the democrats side, and if you can do something on border security, you can approve this vital aid for ukraine. the tragedy here is we're stuck and the world is looking at us saying what the heck, what are you doing, folks? what are you doing, america? and so we got to resolve this and it takes grown-ups on both sides to work a deal. they'll get a compromise. just do it sooner rather than later in my opinion. >> by the way, we'll be talking about the border in just a moment. did you see that, it is happening on this network right now, within this hour, ashley etienne saying she agrees with former republican governor john kasich. thank you to you both. ryan nobles, akayla gardener, thank you. a twist in the giuliani defamation case. we're back in just 60 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports." seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports. ♪ febreze man: i don't about y'all, but when it comes to working from home, i gotta have every part of my house clean. that means tidying up, then spraying my febreze air mist, to leave every room smelling fresh and clean. with that done, it's time to get to work. ♪ la la la la la ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ -missing punches? w-unnecessary!, it's-check reversals?ork. -unnecessary! -time sheet corrections? -unnecessary! -unentered sick time? -unnecessary! -go! -unnecessary! -go! -unnecessary! -when you can take this phone, you'll be ready. -make the unnecessary, unnecessary. let your employees do their own payroll. 15 past the hour. earlier on this hour, a new york state appellate court rejected trump's challenge of the gag order he's under in his new york civil fraud trial. the testimony for that case wrapped up yesterday. and a decision is expected as soon as next month after closing arguments in court. want to bring in nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian and msnbc legal analyst, charles. i know this just broke in the last couple of minutes or so. this rejection of the former president's request to challenge that gag order. >> they did it in the form of a lawsuit against the judge, accusing the judge of violating former president trump's constitutional rights. the appeals court has simply rejected that argument and said that this was not violative of his constitutional rights. the trial is over, so it is moot at this point, but still a kind of affirmation that the gag order that judge engoron imposed on former president trump was valid and constitutional. >> so, what does this mean, in fact, going forward, if we can talk about the new york civil fraud trial timeline, ken, if you will, and then move on to some other developments we have been following as well when it comes to the supreme court. >> right, so we're expecting a verdict from the judge after the holidays. and, remember, the question in this case is merely one of penalties. how much is -- what kind of fines and penalties is the judge going to impose, and to what extent is he going to essentially separate the trumps from their new york business? and there is some appellate issues around that, so he's not totally free, he's constrained in some areas. but a lot is going to rest on how the judge decides to impose these penalties, and it could be very severe. it could suspend or prohibit former president trump and his children from doing business in the state of new york. and that would be a big blow to their real estate empire. >> i want to transition and talk about the d.c. federal case, ken, and talk about the delay put in place by judge chutkan waiting on this ruling from the supreme court. talk us through it. >> so there is two appeals courts now that are waiting to take a crack at this. but the circuit court, the d.c. appeals court and the supreme court, jack smith asked the supreme court to get involved. they have not yet said whether they will do that, but they asked former president trump's lawyers to file a response by next wednesday. and so a number of things could happen here. the supreme court could weigh in. and they could move quickly. they are perfectly capable of deciding issues like this in a matter of days or weeks or they could sit on it and wait, they could wait to see what the appeals court does, in which case we may see some kind of delay. the chances are that these appeals will delay the start of a trial, which is currently set for early march by some period of time. the question is by how much and that's really up in the air. then on the substance, you know, it is anybody's guess. the supreme court may not have to rule on this vexing question of can a president be charged -- will a president be immune from criminal acts by dint of being president. the court could decide everything donald trump did in trying to overturn the election he was not acting as the president. an appeals court already ruled that in a civil case. they may not have to get to that other threshold question of is a sitting president immune from criminal charges. >> i want you to make couple of guesses for me if you can, charles. i would love some guesses from you and then i'd like you to weigh in on an opinion from kavanaugh and looking at how the supreme court could rule on this. kavanaugh being one of the justices that was appointed by the former president. along with two others as well. talk me through what you feel as if the supreme court will do with this case if, in fact, they will rule on it? >> well, just number one is that i don't necessarily think that to ken's point the supreme court is going to question or take up the question of the notion of immunity if they do not have to. i think that's a really important distinction to make between how they will ultimately decide. if they do have to take up the question of immunity, i don't suspect it is going to go the way that donald trump thinks it is going to go. the main reason for that is the precedent it could create for future presidents in office regardless of anything that happens with him, and his criminal cases. >> and then when we're talking about