Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle 20200

President trump categorically unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment. But again, the full trial brief will be coming in a few hours. I want to dig deeper. Jonathan allen at capitol hill, Geoff Bennett at the white house. We mentioned at the top of the show, got breaking news in terms of how the trial might proceed. What can you tell us . Credit Lee Ann Caldwell who is working hard this morning, over the weekend, along with others. What were hearing is that the resolution that Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell is working on which has been seen by some republicans, not all of them, certainly none of the democrats, is going to set up to basically have democrats present their arguments, house managers over a two day period, 12 hours each day, which would run each of the days well into the evening, basically into the midnight hour, probably into the wee hours of the morning, and the president s team present after that. Youre likely talking wednesday, thursday for the democrats, friday and saturday for the president s team. This will anger democrats and maybe anger the president who wanted to have attention to this. That is a tension point with Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell who wants to get rid of it as fast as possible. Geoff, we know about close coordination between Mitch Mcconnell and the president himself, their strategy for doing this. Why would Mitch Mcconnell see it to his benefit to have this run two days instead of three and potentially to midnight or 1 00 a. M. Reporter the Senate Majority leader wanted a senate trial fast and forgettable. He knows right now there are not the votes that exist to convict President Trump on the two articles of impeachment, so in his view theres no reason to devote time and great effort to conducting this trial. He wants to dispense with it. To your point, you mentioned mcconnell said he is working in total coordination with the white house. I talked to republicans that told me when mcconnell said that on fox news some weeks, perhaps months ago, that that was sent to an audience of one. His way of telling President Trump look, ive got this. Let me handle it. Just stay out of the way. It seems so far that President Trump has largely done that. He has allowed Mitch Mcconnell to devise the trial that will be one, good for folks at the white house, and two, good for folks in the senate. Mitch mcconnells number one job is to retain the majority in the senate. Right now, and this is a fluid situation, we have not yet seen the resolution, it could change by the time it drops the floor tomorrow, right now, republicans believe it is in their political best interests to dispense with the trial as quickly as possible. Certainly thats not what democrats want. Democrats want what they call a fair trial, have folks like john bolton, maybe lev parnas, beyond that to have all the documents that the white house so far blocked, to have it introduced in a trial so the American People have a full picture of the president s behavior as relates to ukraine, chris. Thanks so much. Jonathan on the hill as well. Joining me to talk about why this matters to you, anna palmer, coauthor of the politico play book. Peter baker, chief correspondent for New York Times, jeremy peters, political reporter with New York Times. Here with me in studio. Jeremy, what do you make of the change, midnight, 1 00 in the morning, obviously Mitch Mcconnell has a strategy here. Right. Well his strategy is first and foremost to protect his members. He has a number of republican senators who are up for reelection this year who could be in some tough races if they are allowed to force certain votes to look like theyre reflexively siding with President Trump. This is why susan kcollins, lamr alexander say i am open to the idea of witnesses with conditions. They havent specified what the conditions would be in saying im open to calling witnesses, thats a lot different from saying i will vote to have witnesses. You also have cory gardner who doesnt want to talk to anybody about anything. Thats exactly right because this is tricky. For the last three years, the republicans have been followed around the capital by reporters asking about the latest controversy and have gotten practiced. They know when to tune it out, when not to take the bait and when not to tarnish themselves with what he has done. The problem is this is a much bigger level, and republicans understand that if they break with the president , theyre ultimately answerable to voters. Their voters are in lock step with this president. My guess is almost all of the republican senators will be too at the end of the day. I am curious to see what the politico headline will be. We got reaction from one top democratic aide that said it is a sham to do the trial in this format. It is not that surprising given the fact that democrats are pushing for witnesses. They want this to be laid out in a spe specific way, they want it carried out on television. They want this to be something thats really the American Public starts to Pay Attention to. If youre having hearings at midnight, 1 00 a. M. , unlikely youre having much viewing audience besides those of us in politics and reporting on it who are paying attention to critical details. In general, the democrats are very frustrated, feel like they have been left outside the process. Mitch mcconnell keeps a close hold on information. Nobody knows what the rules will be. You even saw the minority leader Chuck Schumer say he is going to force as many votes as possible on witnesses. I think theres a frustration with lack of information going into what is going to be a monumental day tuesday. We have already, peter baker, lets move on to the actual pages that we have seen so far, i thought these legal filings were fascinating, especially from team trump. They never dispute the facts. They go arguably more after the process than the substance of what the democrats laid out in their 111 pages. I thought it was interesting boiling it down, axios wrote concede nothing, admit nothing, apologize for nothing, talk for tv, and dont get into the weeds. Is that basically the white house strategy . I think thats right. Theyre not denying the president was seeking information about democrats or seeking help for his political interests in pressuring the ukranians to open the investigations, theyre simply saying it doesnt matter. Couple arguments, one, the constitutional argument. Cant be impeachable offense, theres no crime alleged. Interesting argument. Traditionally the scholarly view is a high crime or misdemeanor didnt mean anything on the statutory books, not specifically a criminal crime but crime against the republic which might not be outlined in the normal code books. But theyre saying no, you dont allege a specific crime like bribery or extortion, you cant impeach him. Second argument is the process argument as you put it. This has been unfair process, partisan, the house didnt let them have due process. So on and so forth. Those are arguments youll hear from a president being impeached, heard from president clinton last time, process is fall back for every politician in trouble. Larger question is what is impeachable crime. Thats an effective debate theyre trying to draw out. And one the democrats will come back on and say every bit as impeachable as anything considered because it goes against the very nature of what a president s responsibility in office is. The other thing, and the play book goes into this today, when you look at the two feelings, again, the republicans put out Something Else today, dont know how long it will be, you look at 111 pages, a tiny filing, you look at the tone of it, which is legal on the democratic side. Theres a lot of Political Part of it, anyone thats read it as i said earlier, you can almost hear President Trump saying some of the things that are in the republican filing. You really see the contrast in the way both sides are approaching this. And frankly, the way they handled this throughout. I think thats right. I think whats interesting here is trumps legal team clearly is playing for a jury of one, and that is the president. They have been trying to appease him. You see that in the tone and in the arguments theyre making, isnt around the legal justification, isnt in the leads of what the evidence will be, which is what the house impeachment managers are trying to do. This contrast will be drawn out in coming days and weeks as the trial goes forward because so far it doesnt appear the Trump Legal Team will try to dispute the actual facts of what happened. When we go back to how this will look, how the actual trial will go, jeremy, theres some reporting that wants to include something called a kill switch in the resolution. They can vote basically to end the trial anytime. What more can you tell us about that and obviously that would cause quite a stir on the democratic side. Right. I think it is going to revolve largely around the question of witnesses and how quickly theyre able to dispense with the issue, from the republicans point of view. Their strategy internally is to try to force democrats into looking unreasonable. Theyll say democrats, you want to call witnesses. Youre going to force us to take a vote on calling lev parnas, mcmulvaney, john bolton, we want our witnesses. We want hunter biden to testify. That will inevitably kree acrea impasse, so the thinking goes, then republicans have the excuse to say this is going nowhere, youre being unreasonable, you wont let us have a fair trial, how can we have a fair trial with witnesses only the democrats want. If you look at a situation like that, i could see a scenario in which mcconnell is able to force the vote to say all right, lets shortcircuit this right now. And it wouldnt matter what President Trump thinks at that point because mcconnell is going to do ultimately what i think mcconnell wants to do to protect his members. Correct me if im wrong, seems the president s strategy now is to show im the president , business as usual. Tonight he goes to davos to the World Economic forum, arguably has a strong story to tell about the United States economy, and that he is going to do the state of the union. But he wants this done, doesnt he, before the state of the union . He wants the impeachment thing wrapped up . I think thats certainly the plan at this point, to have it wrapped up by then. The date is i believe february 4th. Two weeks from tomorrow. Exactly. And the way theyre scheduling it out, sounds like they think they can get it done by then. 21 years ago, president clinton delivered his state of the Union Address on the same day his trial was ongoing. His trial went on through february 12th that year. I was there. My gosh. I remember it now so vividly about the tensions that were in the air. You wrote a great story about the clinton impeachment, so many comparisons between that impeachment and this one, one of the things you layout, the leaders at the time worked together in 1998. Not the case with Chuck Schumer and Mitch Mcconnell. Very different. They took different points of view on the question of guilt or innocence but recognized the senate was on trial, didnt want it to did i volume of into the partisan food fight in the house. They collaborated, copilots to get the senate through the process with maximum amount of dignity, minimum amount of discord. It was important for them to do it. They started off with rules, 1000 vote, he made sure he kept the democrats on his side, but tom daschle had a different set of interests than the president. His set of interests while definitely protecting the president was also to protect the senate and jeremy talked about Mitch Mcconnell to protect members, best way to do that was work hand in glove with trenlt lot. No fan of president clinton, recognized the votes werent there to convict, wanted to be sure they got through this with minimum amount of fuss. He was told the trial could go on as long as four months, found that appalling, and did what he could to get through in a few weeks toward what ended up being inevitable outcome. Thanks so much to all of you on a day all of this is unfolding in real time. Appreciate it. Coming up. So much more on the impeachment trial. Were digging into competing legal strategies, including the raging battle over witnesses. Later, the surprise announcement no one saw coming, New York Times Editorial Board endorsing two candidates for the president ial nomination. I will talk to the times Deputy Editor about why the paper couldnt pick just one. Dnt pice at leaf blowers. You should be mad your neighbor always wants to hang out. And you should be mad your smart fridge is unnecessarily complicated. Make ice. Making ice. But youre not mad because you have e trade which isnt complicated. Their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. Dont get mad get e trade and start Trading Commission free today. Dont get mad get e trade and start trading man whats my my truck. Is my livelihood. So when my windshield cracked. The experts at Safelite Autoglass came right to me. Tech hi, im adrian. Man thanks for coming. With service i could trust. Right, girl . Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. When we see you enter through our doors. We dont see who youre against, or for. Whether tomorrow will be light or dark. All we see in you, is a spark. We see your kindness and humanity. The strength of each community. The more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. Thats why Xfinity Mobile lets you design your own data. You can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. All with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. Its a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. Switch and save up to 400 a year on your wireless bill. And save even more when you say bring my own phone into your voice remote. Thats simple, easy, awesome. Click, call or visit a store today. This morning, it is crunch time for both sides as the impeachment trial starts back up tomorrow. The seven house managers that will argue the case against President Trump spent the Holiday Weekend in washington, mapping out the best strategy to persuade a Republican Controlled Senate and the American People that the president committed impeachable offenses. The white house has rounded out the legal team that now includes two lawyers involved in the impeachment of bill clinton, and former Florida Attorney general pam bondi and Alan Dershowitz. How will each side make the case . Joining me, former federal prosecutor for Southern District of new york, and msnbc legal analyst, matthew miller, former spokesperson for the justice department, msnbc justice and security analyst. Good to see you both on this mlk day. Alan dershowitz, called himself a liberal democrat once called ken starr a risk to american liberty, now theyre on the same legal team. How is that going to work, whats your take on the president s team overall . Its an interesting choice to fill your legal team with in addition to people that have litigation experience two sort of lightning rods like ken starr, Alan Dershowitz. One of the dangers having somebody like ken starr who famously was involved in the clinton impeachment proceedings, the danger of having ken starr involved, theres kind of a quote for everything, for every legal argument starr will advance in the proceeding, the democrats will be able to find a contrary argument he made in the clinton impeachment proceedings, and play it right back. Theres a risk of having somebody like that take inconsiste inconsistent stances, and that becomes fodder for the democrats then. Dershowitz weighed in why he thinks the president should be acquitted. Let me play that for you guys. As you know, house has cited crimes committed. But they werent elements, theyre not articles of impeachment. Articles of impeachment of two noncriminal actions, namely obstruction of congress and abuse of power, those are what are being voted on. Is it your position President Trump should not be impeached, even if all of the evidence, arguments laid out by the house are accepted as fact . Thats right. But this is what he had to say in an interview in 1998. Certainly doesnt have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you dont need a technical crime. Which is it . Does it have to be a crime . I think the 1998 dershowitz is right. It is unfortunate we have to keep knocking down this argument. Usually something is so wrong, you would think you move to Something Else, but the president s defenders keep repeating it. It is not just contradicted with what he said in the 90s, it is contradicted by what the framers of the constitution said discussing impeachment, contradicted by the House Judiciary Committee articles of impeachment against Geoff Bennett<\/a> at the white house. We mentioned at the top of the show, got breaking news in terms of how the trial might proceed. What can you tell us . Credit Lee Ann Caldwell<\/a> who is working hard this morning, over the weekend, along with others. What were hearing is that the resolution that Senate Majority<\/a> leader Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> is working on which has been seen by some republicans, not all of them, certainly none of the democrats, is going to set up to basically have democrats present their arguments, house managers over a two day period, 12 hours each day, which would run each of the days well into the evening, basically into the midnight hour, probably into the wee hours of the morning, and the president s team present after that. Youre likely talking wednesday, thursday for the democrats, friday and saturday for the president s team. This will anger democrats and maybe anger the president who wanted to have attention to this. That is a tension point with Senate Majority<\/a> leader Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> who wants to get rid of it as fast as possible. Geoff, we know about close coordination between Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> and the president himself, their strategy for doing this. Why would Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> see it to his benefit to have this run two days instead of three and potentially to midnight or 1 00 a. M. Reporter the Senate Majority<\/a> leader wanted a senate trial fast and forgettable. He knows right now there are not the votes that exist to convict President Trump<\/a> on the two articles of impeachment, so in his view theres no reason to devote time and great effort to conducting this trial. He wants to dispense with it. To your point, you mentioned mcconnell said he is working in total coordination with the white house. I talked to republicans that told me when mcconnell said that on fox news some weeks, perhaps months ago, that that was sent to an audience of one. His way of telling President Trump<\/a> look, ive got this. Let me handle it. Just stay out of the way. It seems so far that President Trump<\/a> has largely done that. He has allowed Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> to devise the trial that will be one, good for folks at the white house, and two, good for folks in the senate. Mitch mcconnells number one job is to retain the majority in the senate. Right now, and this is a fluid situation, we have not yet seen the resolution, it could change by the time it drops the floor tomorrow, right now, republicans believe it is in their political best interests to dispense with the trial as quickly as possible. Certainly thats not what democrats want. Democrats want what they call a fair trial, have folks like john bolton, maybe lev parnas, beyond that to have all the documents that the white house so far blocked, to have it introduced in a trial so the American People<\/a> have a full picture of the president s behavior as relates to ukraine, chris. Thanks so much. Jonathan on the hill as well. Joining me to talk about why this matters to you, anna palmer, coauthor of the politico play book. Peter baker, chief correspondent for New York Times<\/a>, jeremy peters, political reporter with New York Times<\/a>. Here with me in studio. Jeremy, what do you make of the change, midnight, 1 00 in the morning, obviously Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> has a strategy here. Right. Well his strategy is first and foremost to protect his members. He has a number of republican senators who are up for reelection this year who could be in some tough races if they are allowed to force certain votes to look like theyre reflexively siding with President Trump<\/a>. This is why susan kcollins, lamr alexander say i am open to the idea of witnesses with conditions. They havent specified what the conditions would be in saying im open to calling witnesses, thats a lot different from saying i will vote to have witnesses. You also have cory gardner who doesnt want to talk to anybody about anything. Thats exactly right because this is tricky. For the last three years, the republicans have been followed around the capital by reporters asking about the latest controversy and have gotten practiced. They know when to tune it out, when not to take the bait and when not to tarnish themselves with what he has done. The problem is this is a much bigger level, and republicans understand that if they break with the president , theyre ultimately answerable to voters. Their voters are in lock step with this president. My guess is almost all of the republican senators will be too at the end of the day. I am curious to see what the politico headline will be. We got reaction from one top democratic aide that said it is a sham to do the trial in this format. It is not that surprising given the fact that democrats are pushing for witnesses. They want this to be laid out in a spe specific way, they want it carried out on television. They want this to be something thats really the American Public<\/a> starts to Pay Attention<\/a> to. If youre having hearings at midnight, 1 00 a. M. , unlikely youre having much viewing audience besides those of us in politics and reporting on it who are paying attention to critical details. In general, the democrats are very frustrated, feel like they have been left outside the process. Mitch mcconnell keeps a close hold on information. Nobody knows what the rules will be. You even saw the minority leader Chuck Schumer<\/a> say he is going to force as many votes as possible on witnesses. I think theres a frustration with lack of information going into what is going to be a monumental day tuesday. We have already, peter baker, lets move on to the actual pages that we have seen so far, i thought these legal filings were fascinating, especially from team trump. They never dispute the facts. They go arguably more after the process than the substance of what the democrats laid out in their 111 pages. I thought it was interesting boiling it down, axios wrote concede nothing, admit nothing, apologize for nothing, talk for tv, and dont get into the weeds. Is that basically the white house strategy . I think thats right. Theyre not denying the president was seeking information about democrats or seeking help for his political interests in pressuring the ukranians to open the investigations, theyre simply saying it doesnt matter. Couple arguments, one, the constitutional argument. Cant be impeachable offense, theres no crime alleged. Interesting argument. Traditionally the scholarly view is a high crime or misdemeanor didnt mean anything on the statutory books, not specifically a criminal crime but crime against the republic which might not be outlined in the normal code books. But theyre saying no, you dont allege a specific crime like bribery or extortion, you cant impeach him. Second argument is the process argument as you put it. This has been unfair process, partisan, the house didnt let them have due process. So on and so forth. Those are arguments youll hear from a president being impeached, heard from president clinton last time, process is fall back for every politician in trouble. Larger question is what is impeachable crime. Thats an effective debate theyre trying to draw out. And one the democrats will come back on and say every bit as impeachable as anything considered because it goes against the very nature of what a president s responsibility in office is. The other thing, and the play book goes into this today, when you look at the two feelings, again, the republicans put out Something Else<\/a> today, dont know how long it will be, you look at 111 pages, a tiny filing, you look at the tone of it, which is legal on the democratic side. Theres a lot of Political Part<\/a> of it, anyone thats read it as i said earlier, you can almost hear President Trump<\/a> saying some of the things that are in the republican filing. You really see the contrast in the way both sides are approaching this. And frankly, the way they handled this throughout. I think thats right. I think whats interesting here is trumps legal team clearly is playing for a jury of one, and that is the president. They have been trying to appease him. You see that in the tone and in the arguments theyre making, isnt around the legal justification, isnt in the leads of what the evidence will be, which is what the house impeachment managers are trying to do. This contrast will be drawn out in coming days and weeks as the trial goes forward because so far it doesnt appear the Trump Legal Team<\/a> will try to dispute the actual facts of what happened. When we go back to how this will look, how the actual trial will go, jeremy, theres some reporting that wants to include something called a kill switch in the resolution. They can vote basically to end the trial anytime. What more can you tell us about that and obviously that would cause quite a stir on the democratic side. Right. I think it is going to revolve largely around the question of witnesses and how quickly theyre able to dispense with the issue, from the republicans point of view. Their strategy internally is to try to force democrats into looking unreasonable. Theyll say democrats, you want to call witnesses. Youre going to force us to take a vote on calling lev parnas, mcmulvaney, john bolton, we want our witnesses. We want hunter biden to testify. That will inevitably kree acrea impasse, so the thinking goes, then republicans have the excuse to say this is going nowhere, youre being unreasonable, you wont let us have a fair trial, how can we have a fair trial with witnesses only the democrats want. If you look at a situation like that, i could see a scenario in which mcconnell is able to force the vote to say all right, lets shortcircuit this right now. And it wouldnt matter what President Trump<\/a> thinks at that point because mcconnell is going to do ultimately what i think mcconnell wants to do to protect his members. Correct me if im wrong, seems the president s strategy now is to show im the president , business as usual. Tonight he goes to davos to the World Economic<\/a> forum, arguably has a strong story to tell about the United States<\/a> economy, and that he is going to do the state of the union. But he wants this done, doesnt he, before the state of the union . He wants the impeachment thing wrapped up . I think thats certainly the plan at this point, to have it wrapped up by then. The date is i believe february 4th. Two weeks from tomorrow. Exactly. And the way theyre scheduling it out, sounds like they think they can get it done by then. 21 years ago, president clinton delivered his state of the Union Address<\/a> on the same day his trial was ongoing. His trial went on through february 12th that year. I was there. My gosh. I remember it now so vividly about the tensions that were in the air. You wrote a great story about the clinton impeachment, so many comparisons between that impeachment and this one, one of the things you layout, the leaders at the time worked together in 1998. Not the case with Chuck Schumer<\/a> and Mitch Mcconnell<\/a>. Very different. They took different points of view on the question of guilt or innocence but recognized the senate was on trial, didnt want it to did i volume of into the partisan food fight in the house. They collaborated, copilots to get the senate through the process with maximum amount of dignity, minimum amount of discord. It was important for them to do it. They started off with rules, 1000 vote, he made sure he kept the democrats on his side, but tom daschle had a different set of interests than the president. His set of interests while definitely protecting the president was also to protect the senate and jeremy talked about Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> to protect members, best way to do that was work hand in glove with trenlt lot. No fan of president clinton, recognized the votes werent there to convict, wanted to be sure they got through this with minimum amount of fuss. He was told the trial could go on as long as four months, found that appalling, and did what he could to get through in a few weeks toward what ended up being inevitable outcome. Thanks so much to all of you on a day all of this is unfolding in real time. Appreciate it. Coming up. So much more on the impeachment trial. Were digging into competing legal strategies, including the raging battle over witnesses. Later, the surprise announcement no one saw coming, New York Times<\/a> Editorial Board<\/a> endorsing two candidates for the president ial nomination. I will talk to the times Deputy Editor<\/a> about why the paper couldnt pick just one. Dnt pice at leaf blowers. You should be mad your neighbor always wants to hang out. And you should be mad your smart fridge is unnecessarily complicated. Make ice. Making ice. But youre not mad because you have e trade which isnt complicated. Their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. Dont get mad get e trade and start Trading Commission<\/a> free today. Dont get mad get e trade and start trading man whats my my truck. Is my livelihood. So when my windshield cracked. The experts at Safelite Autoglass<\/a> came right to me. Tech hi, im adrian. Man thanks for coming. With service i could trust. Right, girl . Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. When we see you enter through our doors. We dont see who youre against, or for. Whether tomorrow will be light or dark. All we see in you, is a spark. We see your kindness and humanity. The strength of each community. The more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. Thats why Xfinity Mobile<\/a> lets you design your own data. You can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. All with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. Its a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. Switch and save up to 400 a year on your wireless bill. And save even more when you say bring my own phone into your voice remote. Thats simple, easy, awesome. Click, call or visit a store today. This morning, it is crunch time for both sides as the impeachment trial starts back up tomorrow. The seven house managers that will argue the case against President Trump<\/a> spent the Holiday Weekend<\/a> in washington, mapping out the best strategy to persuade a Republican Controlled Senate<\/a> and the American People<\/a> that the president committed impeachable offenses. The white house has rounded out the legal team that now includes two lawyers involved in the impeachment of bill clinton, and former Florida Attorney<\/a> general pam bondi and Alan Dershowitz<\/a>. How will each side make the case . Joining me, former federal prosecutor for Southern District<\/a> of new york, and msnbc legal analyst, matthew miller, former spokesperson for the justice department, msnbc justice and security analyst. Good to see you both on this mlk day. Alan dershowitz, called himself a liberal democrat once called ken starr a risk to american liberty, now theyre on the same legal team. How is that going to work, whats your take on the president s team overall . Its an interesting choice to fill your legal team with in addition to people that have litigation experience two sort of lightning rods like ken starr, Alan Dershowitz<\/a>. One of the dangers having somebody like ken starr who famously was involved in the clinton impeachment proceedings, the danger of having ken starr involved, theres kind of a quote for everything, for every legal argument starr will advance in the proceeding, the democrats will be able to find a contrary argument he made in the clinton impeachment proceedings, and play it right back. Theres a risk of having somebody like that take inconsiste inconsistent stances, and that becomes fodder for the democrats then. Dershowitz weighed in why he thinks the president should be acquitted. Let me play that for you guys. As you know, house has cited crimes committed. But they werent elements, theyre not articles of impeachment. Articles of impeachment of two noncriminal actions, namely obstruction of congress and abuse of power, those are what are being voted on. Is it your position President Trump<\/a> should not be impeached, even if all of the evidence, arguments laid out by the house are accepted as fact . Thats right. But this is what he had to say in an interview in 1998. Certainly doesnt have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you dont need a technical crime. Which is it . Does it have to be a crime . I think the 1998 dershowitz is right. It is unfortunate we have to keep knocking down this argument. Usually something is so wrong, you would think you move to Something Else<\/a>, but the president s defenders keep repeating it. It is not just contradicted with what he said in the 90s, it is contradicted by what the framers of the constitution said discussing impeachment, contradicted by the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon<\/a> which included abuse of power. Would have been convicted had he not resigned. Finally it is contradicted by mere logic when you think of the presidency. There are a number of things the president would do, wouldnt be crimes, grave abuse of power for which you would want him removed from office. Say he called bill barr, said i want you to prosecute, investigate adam schiff and nancy pelosi because i am outraged. That wouldnt be a criminal act but would be abuse of power. If he got mad with justin trudeau, and said i will nuclear toronto. Something for which you want to remove a president from office. I want to read what lawrence tribe wrote about the newal and dershowitz argument. The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable died a thousand deaths, but staggers on like a vengeful zombie. Colorful language by lawrence tribe. Yesterday,al and dershowitz talked about whats been one of the key arguments about the trial Going Forward<\/a>, whether or not there should be witnesses. Heres what he said about that. One thing thats very clear is that if witnesses are permitted on one side, they have to be permitted on both sides, and if witnesses are permitted, it will delay the trial considerably because the president will invoke executive privilege as to people like john bolton. That will have to go to court and have a resolution of that before the trial continues. Is delay reason enough not to call witnesses, potential for delay . Absolutely not. Of course having witnesses will make this trial last longer, but having witnesses will also make this a real fair trial, and that is the ultimate goal, not having it done quickly. To dershowitzs point, if the democrats can call witnesses, republicans should be able to call witnesses too. Thats absolutely right, it makes sense. However, the key point is relevance. People should only be able to call witnesses with relevant information. This should not be some sort of side show where you can call anyone you think is interesting and might want to hear, the standard has to be do they have knowledge about facts at issue, can they provide some sort of relevant testimony. And if that is the case, i think a lot of these showy names like hunter biden the republicans have been throwing around wont pass the test. Last night Chuck Schumer<\/a> held a press conference, people may have been focused on football at the time, some games i guess yesterday, clear what he thinks about witnesses and new evidence being part of the trial. Take a listen. We democrats aim to get the truth and make no mistake about it, we will force votes on witnesses and documents and it will be up to four republicans to side with the constitution, to side with our democracy, to side with rule of law and not side in blind obesance to President Trump<\/a> and his desire to suppress the truth. One of the things we heard over and over again in appeal to the republicans that the democrats need, matt, the idea of history is watching, that we need to get to the truth for this to be a legitimate process. Is that messaging working at home . First, i managed to watch last night. People can do both. I think the messaging is working if you look at polls, clear the American People<\/a> overwhelmingly, 65, 70 in some polls want witnesses to proceed. You cant make republicans vote to do the right thing. You cant make them vote for a fair trial. All you can do is raise the political for doing the wrong thing. If they want to do the wrong thing, hold a trial thats a sham, make the proceedings run until midnight or 1 00 in the morning as mcconnell is threatening, any arguments that adam schiff or others make are lost in the dead of night and the American People<\/a> dont see them, nothing democrats can do to force republicans to vote the right way. They can vote it through and acquit the president if they want to. But theyre creating a record, not just of voting to overlook the president s actions, his misconduct, voting to rig the trial in a way that lets them get away with that. That will be on the ballot in 2020, not just for the president but for republican senators that have to defend themselves to voters. Matt, always good to hear from you. And andal and dershowitz is on next hour. Now, we want to talk about puerto rico. Three officials there, including the islands Emergency Management<\/a> director, have been fired. It happened after a video showing a warehouse filled with water, cots, other unused, unused emergency supplies went viral. Some of the supplies allegedly date back to the recovery effort after Hurricane Maria<\/a> hit. All of this comes as the island struggles to recover from a series of devastating earthquakes that caused 200 million in additional damage, left more than 7,000 people homeless. E than 7,000 people homeless everything your trip needs for everyone you love. Expedia. For everyone ou love. Through the at t network, edgetoedge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. From finding out whats selling best. To managing your fleet. To collaborating remotely with your teams. Giving you a nice big edge over your competition. Thats the power of edgetoedge intelligence. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Donald trump is making it worse. Trump all of this with the global warming. A lot of its a hoax. Vo Mike Bloomberg<\/a> knows the science and understands the challenge, hes led an effort that has shut down half the nations dirty polluting coal plants so far. As president , a plan for 80 clean energy by 2028 cutting Carbon Emissions<\/a> and creating millions of clean energy jobs. Mike will get it done. Im Mike Bloomberg<\/a> and i approve this message. Just two weeks from today well get the first result of the 2020 election when iowans caucus. Ahead of that critical final stretch, New York Times<\/a> is out with a big announcement. For the first time in 160 years, its Editorial Board<\/a> is endorsing two Democratic Candidates<\/a> for president. Amy klobuchar and senator Elizabeth Warren<\/a>. Ginni joining me, Kathleen Kingsbury<\/a> who led the endorsement process. Surprising people by picking two. Breakdown, why warren and klobuchar . Felt that senator warren had the clearest diagnosis of what ails america today. We believe strongly that she would be an excellent president. Were a little worried about some of the policy proposals that she has put out, for instance, the board has never supported medicare for all, and feel that senator klobuchar also has a very Progressive Agenda<\/a> ahead of her, but because of her bipartisan credentials in the senate, she may get a lot of that legislation passed. Why not just endorse her . You know, we come to this with a lot of humility, coming out of trumps election in 2016, we recognize a lot of the institutions that undergird values that we espouse are not as strong as we would like them to be. We hear in senator warrens message a path forward that will help usury think those institutions. The board lays out that the American People<\/a> are being confronted with three models to govern the country, one is donald trump, the other you call senator warren the radical option. That word has very negative connotations, certainly among many republicans. I think even with some independents, too. And by labeling warren a radical, does that give ammo to the other side and hurt her potentially with moderates and diseffected trump voters in. We have a lot of concerns about some rhetoric senator warren is using herself actually. She has divided the universe into us versus them, we already have a president doing that on a daily basis. One of the messages in the editorial was she needs to figure out how to create a message of unity that more democrats and more americans generally can hear. The board calls senator klobuchar a realist. She has not been doing as well in the polls, not raising the kind of money the frontrunners have been. What would make her the ideal candidate. One of the things we know for sure, and i saw it, i was in phoenix and los angeles over the weekend with progressives that are already working to try to get a democrat elected, what they care about most is electability. Anyone that tells you they understand electability at this point of the race is pretty foolish actually. We have seen polling collapse. We dont have a strong sense of that. The field is wide open. If you look at 2003, john kerry was still in Single Digits<\/a> at this point in the race, and we believe that senator klobuchar has a lot of up side potential still. Do you think in some ways youre creating a problem, thinking for example theres a monmouth poll that shows 46 of iowa voters are undecided, theyre on first, second, all that kind of stuff. There is an argument to be made about making a decision. Thats what everybody has to do at some point. Somebody has to make a decision, the Editorial Board<\/a> didnt do that. To the extent that endorsements influence people, we can have a different discussion about that, have you diluted the effective nls of this . We tried to make this the most transparent endorsement process possible. We released full transcripts of endorsement interviews. We are putting out a podcast where people can listen to the candidates themselves. Were releasing a Television Episode<\/a> that aired last night, now on hulu, and we feel like this is the endorsement that gets the widest range of voters options. People should go and read the transcripts, listen to the podcast, make their own decision. Well, we were all i would say very surprised with the dual endorsement, but people should read the editorial and understand how you got to where you got. We knew going into this people were going to be dissatisfied and we took that very seriously, but at the end of the day the Democratic Party<\/a> is facing this existential debate, and it needs to be among the voters that the debate plays out. So im excited to see where people head when they start to cast ballots a couple weeks from now. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you for having me. We want to talk more about this. Chris lu, rick tyler join us. Chris, we can argue about influence of endorsements. Overall, people have different opinions on that. But to the extent they can be influential on some level at the very least, they may encourage people who werent thinking about either of the candidates to give them another look by endorsing two candidates, does it dilute the effectiveness . Look, i think the biggest boost here is to Amy Klobuchar<\/a>. Obviously were talking about her in a way we wouldnt be talking about her otherwise. A lot of voters might be willing to give her a second look now. As you say in iowa and through the democratic primaries, a fluid process now, and what was important in the New York Times<\/a> endorsement was her electability, ability to carry counties in minnesota in 2016 that Hillary Clinton<\/a> could not carry. But i will say i look at all endorsements with a big skepticism. I was with obama in 2008, january, 2008 New York Times<\/a> endorsed Hillary Clinton<\/a> over obama. Three days later, ted kennedy endorsed obama over clinton, i would argue that the ted kennedy endorsement for progressives was far more important than New York Times<\/a> endorsement. Rick, it is interesting he says this is a big thing for Amy Klobuchar<\/a>. She also got another endorsement from the quad city times, a big deal, before the iowa caucuses. Thats obviously for cities in that geographic area. But she made a joke before the times endorsement came out leading you to strongly believe she didnt think there was a snowballs chance in hell she would get the New York Times<\/a> endorsement. Take a listen. The staff came in, they go weve got news, New York Times<\/a> is doing some kind of endorsement later. I said you know what, New York Times<\/a> only covers one city, the quad times includes four. Do you agree with chris, is this a bigger deal for Amy Klobuchar<\/a> than it is for Elizabeth Warren<\/a> . Absolutely. Way bigger deal for Amy Klobuchar<\/a>. I have to saygree with chris, endorsements, you can take with a grain of salt, depending who they are, but the New York Times<\/a>, doesnt make any ideological sense, doesnt make sense because asking people to split the vote between two candidates would not help either candidate, would help someone like joe biden, but for Amy Klobuchar<\/a>, now she has bragging rights. She has been just outside the margin of the top runners. Shes likely to stay in the race. She would, and i agree with their assessment that she probably has the most up side potential of anyone else running. Yeah. I think it is a big deal for Amy Klobuchar<\/a>. I did logically, Elizabeth Warren<\/a> represents what i would consider a lot of radical changes whereas Amy Klobuchar<\/a> is building on their agenda as it has been going sort of steady as she goes as opposed to medicare for all which would deny 130 million private insurance policies, things like that. Meantime, joe biden who didnt get the endorsement is fielding attacks from democratic rivals, he talked about it when he sat down with South Carolina<\/a>s state Editorial Board<\/a>. Take a listen to this. Im asking a rhetorical question. Bernie is top of the ticket in South Carolina<\/a> or warren top of the ticket. How Many Democrats<\/a> down the line you think are going to win . Clearly were getting closer. Thats one of the milder statements that weve heard that theyve been going back and forth on a number of issues. Are you of the camp that in fighting hurts the Democratic Party<\/a> overall . Look, i have been a democrat a long time, seen the in fighting happen. There was no greater in fighting than in 2008 between obama and clinton. I think the question is after you settle on a nominee whether the party can come together the way Hillary Clinton<\/a> joined hand in hand with barack obama and campaigned vigorously for him or whether we remain a divided party as in 2016 with clinton and sanders. I think bidens point is an important one. It is one of the reasons you see a lot of freshman democrats representing trump districts coming out, supporting biden. I think they understand having somebody at the top of the ticket to help them would be important. Great to see you both. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Coming up, one thing is becoming clear as the impeachment fight rages on. The Republican Party<\/a> is the party behind donald trump. Why are they so united behind President Trump<\/a>. Authorities trying to avoid a repeat at charlottesville, a gun lights rally set to kickoff in a little more than an hour. Thousands are already gathered. Well take you there live. Well take you there live. Sleep this amazing . Thats a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. Our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no nextday grogginess. Zzzquil pure zzzs. Naturally superior sleep. Whit looks like this. Heart failure look like . The beat goes on entresto is a Heart Failure<\/a> pill that helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. Dont take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. Ladiladidi dont take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if youve had angioedema with an ace or arb. The most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. Ask your doctor about entresto. The beat goes on yeah you know im not sure. Whos peter samuel . Daddy . Yeah . Whos peter . Well sweetie, hes your greatgreat grandfather. Does he look like me . Yeah. Yeah . Yeah. Turn questions youve always had into stories you cant wait to share; with ancestry. Why fingerstick when you can scan . With the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. With the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. Ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. You can do it without fingersticks. Learn more at freestylelibre. Us you can do it without fingersticks. Tits great actually, ive been listening to audible. Its audiobooks, news, meditations. Gotta go hey you know, i do think its weird youve started commuting when you work from home. Ill be in my office. Download audible and start every day off right. Hours from now, President Trump<\/a> will be on his way out of the country, he is going to davos, switzerland to attend the World Economic<\/a> forum. It isnt just a distraction. According to lindsey graham, the president is looking beyond the impeachment trial. His mood is to go to the state of the union with this behind him, talk about what he wants to do for the next rest of 2020, what he wants to do for the next four years. He is very much comfortable with the idea this is going to turn out well for him. He believes politically this has helped him. But has it . Joining me to talk about it, former republican governor Christie Todd<\/a> whitman. Chris lu is back. Governor, youve watched this before, how much impact over what happens the next couple weeks will have on the president ial race Going Forward<\/a> . You know, it is hard to tell. Obviously the republicans are going to push it through as fast as they can with the schedule that Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> has announced. He is trying to get it done at 2 00 in the morning so other people arent watching, we know what the senate will do, unfortunately. I was trying to get two pictures to put together, one of Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> with his quote to say he was not an impartial juror, and the other one raising his right hand, swearing his oath of office, swearing on the bible, so help me god, he would be an impartial jurist. You wonder why the public is skeptical of the whole process. When you watch this, do you think theres a not legit in terms of this is the way to do this to make this a fair process, but strategically is this the way to go . You know, the American People<\/a> from everything that i have seen, people i talked to in polls believe that in a trial you have witnesses, and the American People<\/a> would really like to know whats behind this. If theres nothing there, why not let witnesses who are in the room at the time testify to say theres no there there. But lets get it all out. This has been too convoluted, it is too important to our country. I believe that in fact as far as the average person goes, theres a frustration with the republican tactic of no witnesses. So unless they allow some witnesses, im not sure how thats going to play. As you well know, it is a lifetime between now and november. It is indeed. Anything could happen, especially with this president. Yes. Chris, so far, and well see if anything changes because of impeachment, but the Republican Party<\/a> has stayed in absolute lock step with the president who as a candidate, many of the same people had terrible things to say about. I know the question gets asked. I hear it asked when i go out and cover democrats, it is asked in Democratic Party<\/a> circles, even in Republican Party<\/a> circles, people are confused by it. What is the reason for this loyalty . And is there anything you see about this impeachment process that could change that . Well, look, as the governor said, it is an eternity between now and november, but i would also argue probably an eternity between now and when we get to the witness phase of the trial. Weve seen over the last two weeks not only offer of john bolton to testify, lev parnas, and gao report that the president broke the law. There are things that could happen in the interim that change the dynamics, but if we look at it now, democrats are where they are, republicans are where they are. But i still believe theres a group of people in the middle who will be, again, not members of congress, people in the public that will be listening to this, trying to make up their mind as to what happened. As governor whitman says, the truth of the matter, we dont know anything. We have a strong case the democrats made, but it is without the top tier of Trump Officials<\/a> testifying, and i think they need to testify so the American People<\/a> know the full story of what happened. Mitch mcconnell has a lot on his plate, christy. He wants to protect the president. He is up for reelection. Granted in a ruby red state, has potential opponent who is raising a lot of money. He has to protect himself. Then there are these other senators who will make the difference between whether or not the republicans keep control of the senate. People like cory gardner who has not answered any questions about this, at some point theyre all going to have to vote. Where do you see Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> in terms of trying to protect those vulnerable members and how theyre going to handle all of this. Well, i think a lot of it again will depend on witnesses or potential evidence they hear, whether theres need for additional witnesses. You saw from Martha Mcsally<\/a> last week, potentially endangered republicans will say it is not worth it, trying to upset the president s base. Im sticking with one side and try in this polarized environment, try to mobilize as many core supporters as possible. Christine todd whitman, chris lu, thank you so much. Coming up. A state of emergency has been declared, thousands of gun rights supporters and several hate groups protest on the steps of the Virginia State<\/a> capitol. Were going there live next. E c. Were going there live next. Cologuard colon Cancer Screening<\/a> for people 45 plus at average risk. Ive heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. Im not worried. It doesnt run in my family. I can do it next year. No rush. Cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92 of colon cancers. You just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. Theres no excuse for waiting. Get screened. Ask your Healthcare Provider<\/a> if cologuard is right for you. Most insured patients pay 0. We have breaking news for you as you take a look at the live pictures. Thousands of people already gathered outside the Virginia State<\/a> capitol ahead of the guns rights valley. The governor has declared a state of emergency. Banning people from carrying weapons on the grounds of the capitol after receiving credible intelligence from Law Enforcement<\/a> that hate groups are planning to disrupt the event. Nbc correspondent cal perry is on the phone from richmond, virginia. I know youre in the heat of it. In the middle of the thousands of the people. Whats the mood on the ground and the concern there right now . The concern is youll have counterdemonstrators and what you have in the street are thousands of heavily armed individuals, some of them militia members and we have seen some of the same militias that were in charlottesville two years ago. Youll hear the crowd chanting usa, usa around me. The concern that officials have is that we could see a repeat of what we saw in charlottesville in 2000 2017 that some the militia groups will come to the demonstration and will start trouble intentionally with either Law Enforcement<\/a> officials or the demonstrators. The demonstrators here are petitioning the government to stop the restrictions on guns and were talking about a very simple restriction. One hand gun per month. Background checks. Red flag in laws. People here say they dont want it and people from out of state, people from all over the country in richmond this morning. But youre witnessing people who are ignoring the ban on people carrying weapons . Well, theres a ban around the capitol itself. Pretty small area. People are not ignoring that ban, but theyre heavily armed to really intimidate lawmakers. I want to be clear about some of this. Some of the militia leaders we have seen on the streets have have to sign waivers saying theyd never return to richmond and theyre here this morning. Cal perry, of course well continue to follow this closely. Be safe out there. Coming up in just minutes, Alan Dershowitz<\/a>, key member of President Trump<\/a>s legal team will be here live. You dont want to miss that. Will be here live. You dont want to miss that. Its audiobooks, news, meditations. Gotta go hey you know, i do think its weird youve started commuting when you work from home. Ill be in my office. Download audible and start every day off right. I spend a lot of time sin my truck. Y . Its my livelihood. Rock music man so im not taking any chances when something happens to it. So when my windshield cracked. My friend recommended Safelite Autoglass<\/a>. Tech hi, im adrian. Man thanks for coming. Tech oh, no problem. Tech check it out. Man yeah. They came right to me, with Expert Service<\/a> where i needed it. Thats service i can trust. No matter what im hauling. Right, girl . Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. Its beautiful. You want to take it for a testdrive . Definitely. Were gonna go in that. Seriously . I thought we were going on a test drive. We are. A heavyduty test drive. Woohoo this is dope. Ive never been on a test drive like this before. This silverado offers a 6. 6 liter Duramax Diesel<\/a> that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. Awesome lets take these logs up that hill. Lets do it. Wow this trucks a beast. Are you sure theres a trailer back there . This is incredible. Best test drive ever. [chuckle] you get more than yourFree Shipping<\/a>. Ir, best test drive ever. You get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, ill take that. Wait honey, no. When you want it. You get a delivery experience you can always count on. You get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. You get fast and Free Shipping<\/a> on the things that make your home feel like you. Thats what you get when youve got wayfair. So shop now on this Martin Luther<\/a> king jr. Day thats going to wrap up this hour. Im chris jansing. More news with hallie jackson. Thanks to you, my friend. Today starts year four of Donald Trumps<\/a> presidency, three years after he swore to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and now senators ready to decide if he broke that promise. Breaking new details on how the impeachment trial is going to work. And an answer to a question that we have been asking for days. Democratic and republican sources are talking to our team and democrats are not doing to be happy with the time line that we have just confirmed. Thats ahead of a deadline with the legal finding, arguing for acquittal. But here live before that one of the deadlines, Alan Dershowitz<\/a> will be here in a minute. And one senator will tell us what she knows about the latest in the private talks between capitol hill leaders. All of it as the president heads to neutral ground, literally, on switzerland. Set to be in davos as the bulk of the senate trial is set to begin. It sure doesnt feel like a holiday. Let me start here in washington. Kasie hunt on capitol hill. Geoff bennett at the white house and robert costa from the Washington Post<\/a> and nbc political analyst. New reporting just in","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia902802.us.archive.org\/10\/items\/MSNBCW_20200120_140000_MSNBC_Live_With_Stephanie_Ruhle\/MSNBCW_20200120_140000_MSNBC_Live_With_Stephanie_Ruhle.thumbs\/MSNBCW_20200120_140000_MSNBC_Live_With_Stephanie_Ruhle_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240618T12:35:10+00:00"}