Theres been no statement by Speaker Pelosi as to who the managers will be, but i think people need folks like adam and jerry. We are expecting thursday to likely convene in the afternoon as is custom for an impeachment trial and go through the formalities. I think the caucus recognizes it is a deep bench. Whoever the speaker chooses will do a good job. Saw members from house oversight, intel do an excellent job. The American People want a fair trial in the senate. The American People know that a trial without witnesses and documents is not a real trial, it is a sham trial. And the American People will be able to tell the difference between a fair hearing of the facts and the cover up. Joining me, Geoff Bennett from capitol hill. Geoff, what happens tomorrow. Articles of impeachment and then the naming of the managers. How does this go . Reporter right, the house tomorrow, ali, will vote on the resolution that names the house managers, those house lawmakers that will prosecute the case on the senate floor when opening arguments start, expect potentially sometime next week. It funds, pays for a senate trial. Then the vote itself is the trigger that transmits the articles of impeachment from the house to the senate. The vote we expect will be quick, just ten minutes of debate on the floor and then after the vote, at some point after the vote youll see the articles of impeachment themselves be tucked into wooden boxes and physically carried from the house to the senate by the sergeantatarms. In effect, the house will be formally wrapping up its portion of the impeachment proceedings that started way back in september, even though they say the investigation into President Trumps alleged wrongdoing continues, ali. Talk about the house managers. We heard people speculate who the managers might be. Do we know who the managers are, how nancy pelosi chooses them . Reporter we have a good sense of it. You heard congressman welch in the opening say he expects that chairman jerry nadler of the Judiciary Committee and adam schiff of the Intelligence Committee will be among that group. Back in the 90s in the clinton trial, republicans that were in charge of the house at the time named 13 members, all men, from the house Judiciary Committee to serve as their impeachment managers. I am told by sources familiar, the speaker likely will settle on a group thats smaller, more diverse. Regional diversity matters. Remember, during the impeachment trials, republicans named democrats as the coastal impeachment squad. That was a reference to the fact that the Committee Chairman more often than not on the democratic side come from new york or california. Theres some, you heard a comment in the open of the show about witnesses and documents from chuck schumer. Republican senator from alaska, li Lisa Murkowski is looking for a protected vote with respect to witnesses and documents. What does that mean . Reporter what she meant is she wants to have the opportunity to take a vote on whether the senate should bring forward witnesses and documents that werent included in the house portion of this of course because the white house blocked it. Now, Mitch Mcconnell has said that he wants to follow the clinton template, and in the clinton trial there was a time after the opening arguments, the arguments presented by the house lawmakers and rebuttal from the white house legal team, that was then at the time when the vote was taken as to whether or not senators wanted to hear more. Murkowski is saying she wants that to happen. Mcconnell is saying in his vision of the trial, that will happen. Democrats of course wanted that agreement up front because they did not trust once the trial gets started that they would have the leverage and be able to garner votes that they would need, 51 votes they would need to get a key vote on witnesses. Thank you for that. As we wait for Speaker Pelosi to name the managers in the Upcoming Senate impeachment trial, look at what the house laid out already in the articles of impeachment. Article one is the abuse of power. It argues that President Trump solicited interference in the 2020 u. S. President ial election by asking ukraine to publicly announce investigations into joe biden and discredited theory that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 election. This started with the infamous july 25th phone call where the ukranian president zelensky thanked President Trump for his ongoing support of ukraine. The president responded i would like you to do us a favor though. The articles charge that the Trump Administration made clear to ukraine that a white house meeting and 391 million in u. S. Military aid that was already congressionally approved were conditioned on announcing these investigations. To this end, july 18th the office of management, a week before the call between president s trump and zelensky, office of management and budget announced a freeze on ukranian military assistance without providing rationale, a week before the call. Article one main tanls the president used agents inside and outside of the u. S. Government to pressure ukraine into making these announcements. Youll recall the eu ambassador, gordon sondland, testified to the house Intelligence Committee, quote, was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Lets look at the second article. Article two is obstruction of congress, charges that the president instructed agencies not to comply with impeachment inquiry subpoenas because of this directive. Departments of state, energy, defense as well as office of management and budget all refused to produce a single document or record. Additionally, current and former executive Branch Officials were directed not to cooperate with investigators, even if they were at the center of the ukraine time line. Nine notable Administration Officials defied subpoenas, including the president s chief of staff, mick mulvaney. Joining me, former counsel to the house Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry of nixon, and congressman mckol om who served as Republican House manager in the impeachment trial of president nixon. You im sorry, president clinton. Sorry about that. You heard us talk about impeachment managers in that trial. Bill mccollum was one of 13 people sent. As you heard, bill, were probably going to have a smaller delegation going over this time. Tell me about the role of impeachment mr. Speakeanager. What do you do as impeachment manager . Well, you present the case, first of all because under senate rules, they have rules that go back a ways, they expect after they receive articles and lead impeachment manager, whoever it is, will read the articles on one day, later this week, probably thursday or friday. Next week whenever they begin, the house impeachment managers will present the case, the arguments of fact and law, et cetera, that may take a couple of days, then theyll be there for rebuttal after the president s attorneys present whatever theyre going to present. Theyll also be there for motions and other procedural issues and make closing arguments, assuming there are witnesses and goes to normal trial conclusion. It is the major role of presenting the houses case. What are the traits that nancy pelosi is looking for, is it going to be obviously we heard that jerry nadler and schiff will be in it. Is it the skill set the managers bring or is it about Something Else . Probably a little of both. Obviously the Committee Chairman wants to acknowledge their role in developing the articles of impeachment, the facts underlying them, but it is really a job, a prosecutorial job. As bill said, they have an important role, they present the evidence and argument in support of impeachment. And the way that Mitch Mcconnell set this up is theyll make that presentation and then the senate, if mcconnells rules are followed, will vote as in clinton impeachment whether articles should be immediately dismissed or should go forward with witnesses and new evidence thats come out in foia documents. So they have an important role. They have to overcome the hurdle, burden of having the case not dismissed so they can go to the next step of having witnesses. Bill, some republican senators have indicated that they either want to see witnesses or documents or both. What do you read that to mean . There are some people would like to see donald trump removed from office, say see, they might go the other way, might vote to remove the president. Do you read that into that or are these republicans wanting to be able to say to constituents we held a fair trial . I dont know if they all made up their minds, i doubt they have. I like to believe they havent. It should be a fair process. When we presented articles with respect to president clinton, all of us wanted to have witnesses, a full trial. Didnt appreciate the fact that we were required to only use depositions to present our evidence, et cetera. What i expect in this is that the senators themselves that are saying this genuinely would like to go to the next stage and hear additional evidence in which case theyre going to have to vote against a motion to dismiss. There may be a majority for that motion if there are enough senators that believe that no matter what is presented to them, they dont want to remove this president , dont believe it is a high crime or misdemeanor or whatever. Assuming they get the votes, dont have the votes for that, then theyll get their chance, and i dont know, witnesses didnt necessarily vote for impeachment or removal from president clinton, so you cant be sure. Michael, there is some reporting from axios about a trove of Text Messages turned over by lev parnas, indicted former Rudy Giuliani associate, to the house. I guess the question is what happens with new evidence . We already have a whole lot of evidence the house didnt get that it wanted. What happens with new evidence when you enter this phase . Under Mitch Mcconnells rule, the new evidence is ignored. At least at the early stage where the motion to dismiss is decided. Under the rules, not only can house managers not only present new witnesses, they cant present any evidence that wasnt previously presented to the house when they voted the articles of impeachment, so thats why it is going to be critical, and i think the republicans are in a vulnerable spot of saying we dont want to hear evidence that the public already knows about. The parnas documents the public doesnt know, thats new evidence, thats going to be motivating the republican senators when we say they want to hear witnesses, they also by doing that will open the door to hearing new documentary evidence that the house has received. Bill, what do you make of the john bolton situation, he says i am willing to testify, Mitch Mcconnell says i am not interested. Regardless where you stand on it politically, there are a lot of people saying the guy was talked about a lot during the impeachment, he was there, if he wants to testify, why not let him . I would if i were there, but thats my opinion. I have been through this a little bit before. I would suggest this. The senate controls all of this. It is a rule thats there now that can be changed by the majority if they want to. Theyre probably going to go through the process of getting through the motion to dismiss. If that motion to dismiss is defeated after arguments are made, then i think there will be a decision has to be made by senators as to, a, i presume they then hear witnesses, are they going to confine them to two or three like with us, or allow new evidence to come in or are they not. It isnt all a decision made by senator mcconnell, but it has to pass through this process first which is not unique, by the way, to this trial. It has been the procedure of the senate for some time, but fwen, it is their rules, not court rules, their decision. Michael, how do you think the best way to handle it is, if you are on the president s side, dont want him removed, but you have a key witness, every lawyer or Prosecutor Says this is weird, you have a key witness thats ready to testify, something should happen. Something should happen. Of course, President Trump has intimated he is going to invoke executive privilege, so even if the senate votes to hear him, he is going to try to block it. He can be defeated. Chief roberts can rule executive privilege doesnt apply, has to apply on a question basis. Even if he doesnt do that, senate can do it by majority vote. One of the interesting things is each side presents their evidence. Whats the president s defense . Is it going to be it was a perfect call, thats what he would like. But i bet the house, lawyers for the white house are going to argue some other additional grounds like it is not an impeachable offense. The president may not like that. Thanks to you both. Up next, new reporting that russian spies hacked Ukranian Energy company at the center of the trump impeachment case, were going to tell you what theyre trying to find out and what they could do with that information. New arrests over the passenger plane that was shot down in iran. Youre watching velshi and ruhle on msnbc. That. That wasnt there when i was here earlier. whimper really . You know, in italy, they let you park anywhere. Have a good day, sir. With geico, the savings keep on going. Just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15 or more on car insurance. glass shattering frustrated yell car horn blast yelp thats it. Im calling kohler about their walkin bath. Nah. Not gonna happen. My name is ken. How may i help you . Hi, im calling about kohlers walkin bath. Excellent happy to help. Huh . Hold one moment please. [ finger snaps ] hmm. The kohler walkin bath features an extrawide opening and a low stepin at three inches, which is 25 to 60 lower than some leading competitors. The bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. Kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. Are you seeing this . The kohler walkin bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. Everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohlercertified installer. And its made by kohler americas leading plumbing brand. We need this bath. Yes. Yes you do. A kohler walkin bath provides independence with peace of mind. Welcome back to velshi and ruhle. Russian military hackers launched a Phishing Campaign targeting Burisma Holdings in november. Former Vice President s son hunter served on burismas board. They wanted to investigate bidens links to the company. Area one says the focus of the Hacking Campaign was stealing email credentials and passports of employees. The russians were able to steal user names. This is the same group of hackers that broke into the Democratic Organization and Hillary Clintons campaign in 2016. Joining us, Josh Letterman who covers National Security. Josh, the russians may have been hacking something isnt maybe a big surprise, but what might they have taken, what can they do with that information . Ali, more questions than answers about what they had, what they were able to get out of servers, and what they could do with it. Os stensably could take that information and release it on the internet or through selective leaks, the way we saw the hacking in the 2016 election. Another big concern, if they release information purportedly hacked from burisma, we may not know if what they release is accurate, true information or not. This is a concern that was echoed by Shelby Pierson, top Election Security official for the u. S. Director of national intelligence. Listen to what she had to tell nbc news about this just today. It is also important to recognize that the Intelligence Community doesnt always have the access and insights to know whats real and whats fake. Some is cognizance from sources and others is an analytic judgment. Thirdly, we may not have insight at all. This is a problem, particularly since deep fix. Lets parse this for viewers. Information may come out, show email exchanges. Unlike last time we saw a dump, youre saying they may not be real. At this point word is out that the russians have the information, they might release it, might not, others might release something and were not clear on whats real and whats not any more. Exactly. Ali, one of the hallmarks of russian disinformation campaigns is that they release some thats real and mix in with that some information thats not. And that creates a lot of ambiguity where people have to assume all of it is real or at least that damaging information is able to spread out there, and people dont know what to think. We know weve got response from democrats on this, heard from chair of the house, Homeland Security releasing a statement. Heres the question. Have we had response from the government, from the Trump Administration on this . We did hear from Shelby Pierson at the office of director of national intelligence, but what we havent heard is any kind of real response