Vendetta. Our children and their children will answer, what did you do . What did you say . Afforded more rights to jesus than the democrats have afforded this president. I will vote to impeach donald trump. It doesnt really feel like were being impeached. I dont know about you, but im having a good time as president. The yahs are 230. The nahs are 197. Article one is adopted. And there you have it. You know, a lot has happened this year, but one of the houses final actions of all of 2019 was this historic action, impeaching President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of congress for behavior that would have really been unthinkable for almost any president until donald trump took office. We used to care about democracy. We used to care about our allies. We used to stand up to putin and russia. We used to. You may one day be in the majoritiment and you will want to hold a president accountable. And what will you say when that president says you are a paper tiger. You have no oversight. I can ignore your subpoenas. What will you say . What will you say . What will you do . What will the senate do in the new year. Anyone that tells you they know does not know what they are talking about because a lot of the rules are yet to be determined. As the action moves over to the senate eventually, democrats are saying one thing they want is more evidence to be heard. Ledder mcconnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment trial in modern history, making this the first Senate Impeachment trial of a president in the history that heard no witnesses. Is this president s case so weak that none of the president s men can defend him under oath . These are just some of the battle lines we are tracking. They will be worked out in this time ahead. Democrats have multiple tools to force certain types of changes and also to force public accountability. I have a breakdown on that tonight. But we begin with history unfolding before our very eyes, something many people thought should happen. No one knew if it would happen. We are talking about the impeachment of donald trump. The yahs are 230. The nahs are 197. Article one is adopted. We begin now with former counsel to the mayor of new york city, a veteran of the Southern District of new york and kurt anderson, a longtime trump chronicler in new york. Good evening to both of you. Good evening. I want to start with you, not with the law, which we often do and well get to, but with the trumpiness of this. He got himself into the exact situation that he hates, rebuke, a mark, bad branding. And while there are many people who will still try to defend him and his party certainly in the conservative media, lets reflect for a moment how this person, who is certainly effective at certain things, was so blusteringly ineffective in this in a way that will haunt him literally in his obituary. Yeah. Now, the question do you talk about a mentally deranged person as being effective or ineffective . There is a kind of compulsive derangement about him where the most extraordinary thing he said almost four years ago in iowa before he had the nomination was that famous thing, you know, its crazy, i could shoot somebody in the middle of fifth avenue and get away with it. They love me. Well, that, apart from any rational calculation about avoiding impeachment and playing the political game, that kind of compulsion about proving that thats true is what this is all about. He cant help himself. And of course that is part of what his base loves, is hes honest. And in that sense, he is honest. He cant really cover his true sentiments, feelings, desires, including that they will love him no matter. What lets dig into the ethics of that because norm breaking, law breaking, rule breaking, there is certainly a rebellious american ethic in that. You want to go back far enough, we declared our independence from the old rules. And, yet, isnt there an ethical difference between some notion of rebellion and renewal and what he stands accused of, which is not being stand, not being ethical but needing to cheat, needing to extort allegedly foreign power to remain in power. Thats what the federalist papers have been quoted a lot last week in the debate, so to speak, over his impeachment. But if you look at the federalist papers and look at the history of how the impeachment clause was written, it was exactly about preventing this kind of complicity with foreign powers, about which the founders were freaked out whether it was the british or the french or to be named later. And, so, he is the guy. And this is precisely the behavior that they were writing to have a way to punish and get rid of such a president. Yeah, he is that dude. He is that dude. To paraphrase jefferson. One of the few voices who has emerged, highly conservative libertarian. But take a look at his case against trump in being a republican who left the party over what he calls trumps abuse of power. Impeachment is not about policy disagreements or ineffective governance, nor is it about criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time or constitution was written. Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency. And ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law. His actions reflect precisely the type of conduct the framers of the constitution ended to remedy through the power of impeachment, and it is our duty to impeach him. Yes, i think mr. Mosh is absolutely right. And it actually goes to the way in which many of the republicans were confusing and misrepresenting what has happened and what the evidence is in this impeachment process because they not only said things like the process wasnt fair and there was not due process. Thats not true. Donald trump got the same opportunities that nixon got and that clinton got in terms of being able to cross examine witnesses if he had so chosen and many other things. But its this argument that you didnt prove a crime and you didnt have direct evidence, and everything that kind of distracted from the actual issues here, which is exactly what mr. Mosh said is, did this president under with an oath where he swore that he would be faithful to the office, did he use it for his own personal gain in a way that was exactly, to kurts point, exactly what the founders worried about . Yeah. And exactly what our constitution was designed to protect us from. It was not designed to protect us from people rebelling in the sense of, you know, having disagreements to his point about policy, fighting with one other about the right direction for the country, what our Foreign Policy should be. It was, though, about saying, i will take all the power that i have and i will deploy it all to my own benefit against the interests of the country. Yeah. And thats why now he stands awaiting a trial. Thats right. Which is something he has been running from his whole life. Both of you stay with me. Speaking of trials, i want to bring in another former u. S. Attorney. Good evening to you. When you look at this coming senate trial, what can we glean from the trial system in the United States which you know so much about about how it should work, what is fair and where is it necessarily different . Thanks, ari. It is a very different process obviously and there is two fundamental differences. Obviously in a criminal trial, there are a set of laws and rules that we all know that dont get changed in the middle of trial. We know what the evidence rules are. We know what due process is. The courts have analyzed it and its set there. The other thing of course is the jury is very different. In a trial we have voir dire. We have a system to make sure that there are fair and impartial jurors who judge the facts and the law solely on whats presented to them in the court. And thats not how our impeachment process works. Well, karen on voir dire that allows you to question the jurors and get rid of ones that arent fit to be in the trial, i think americans would have plenty of views of who they would eliminate if we had that view for the senate right now. Yeah. I think thats true. Thats what i meant. There is a fundamental difference in how the actual trial is meant to occur in the senate versus what a trial is in a criminal process. Theyre very different. The trial in the senate, we also have the system is were not sure exactly what the rules are going to be. There are rules that existed in previous impeachment trials, but as, i think, you have pointed out, they can change in the middle of the process. Yeah. So were in this, you know, odd situation where were not sure what the rules are going to be. If you will permit me to be somewhat lofty, what should americans take from this system that is that is a possibility in our constitution rarely exercised and we lived during times that are both hyperbolic and cynical. Everything is the biggest deal ever, but also nothing matters. It could be very disorienting. Yet, isnt it fascinating and potentially constructive for the country to sit back and say, oh, the president is not above the law. Whatever happens at a trial, he has to go through one. And what are we to take from it as a citizenry that there is this system provided for in the constitution . Well, i think it is obviously it is a very, very important fundamental rule that the president is not above the law. Thats why the framers put this impeachment process into the constitution and didnt just say, well, well wait for elections. And there is, looking on the Positive Side going through this process, well let people know that our democracy still exists. On the other hand i think, you know, were all sort of worried by if mcconnell tries to run it as a situation where, you know, were not going to listen to the facts. Were just going to have argument and makes it a sham trial, you know, thats a very difficult situation unless it creates rules that become more permanent for the future. Yeah. I think you lay that out so well. I think viewers have come to understand just how much power u. S. Attorneys have in our federal system. You have been in that post and we always appreciate your wis m wisdom. Thank you so much. Thank you, ari. Appreciate it. Turning back to the panel here in new york and karen brings so much to the table, i want to play a little bit of spee Speaker Pelosi who shows this is more than rules and constitutional text, she also shows that she more so than other folks in washington gets how to deal with this probsessed president. Our founders when they wrote the constitution, they suspected that there could be a rogue president. I dont think they suspected that we could have a rogue president and a rogue leader in the senate at the same time. Kurt, on the level of fighting strategy, politics, what did you think of the way she rounded out this . She owned the night obviously with the vote. And the next day she came back and seemed to knock the other side off guard. I think shes been remarkable. And then on friday she sent the letter to the president inviting him to give his state of the Union Address to a joint session perhaps, probably even, while a senate trial will be in session. Which is well played. I mean, as a theatrical move. And, indeed, although im all for this solemn and important process showing that the president is not above the law playing out, the trial i wouldnt call it a sham, but it is we know its a fixed trial. We know the outcome. There is no question about the outcome. Therefore, its a theatrical presentation. Imsimil it simply is. He said that several times last week over and over, i dont feel like ive been impeached because in like a wwe match of which with which hes familiar and with which hes the hall of fame. In a wwe match you know whats going to happen in the end. And indeed he knows whats going to happen in the end in this show trial. In which wwe character do you see him as here . Himself, of course. He played himself in the wwe. Well, that raises a deeper question. Can you play yourself . Well, that is a meta. Question. It is a work shoot where you mix reality and fiction into one spectacle. Well, hes played himself, and i mean that in the brooklyn sense. Great points all around. I have to fit in a break because we have so much in the special. My thanks to maya and kurt. Coming up, as promised, we have a breakdown of how it works, the precedence, the rules and amazing footage i want to show you. We will speak to the countrys leading historian of what this means for the long view. And Thomas Friedman joins us. Thats all ahead on our msnbc special, the impeachment of donald j. Trump. Do you recall, not long ago we would walk on the sidewalk all around the wind blows we would only hold on to let go blow a kiss into the sun we need someone to lean on blow a kiss into the sun we needed somebody to lean on all we need is someone to lean on good morning, mr. Sun. Good morning, blair. [ chuckles ] whoo. Im gonna grow big and strong. Yes, you are. Im gonna get this place all clean. Ill give you a hand. And im gonna put lisa on crutches wait, what . Said shes gonna need crutches. She fell pretty hard. You might want to clean that up, girl. Excuse us. When owning a Small Business gets real, progressive helps protect what you built with customizable coverage. And im gonna eh, eh, eh. Donny, no. Oh. Too shabby too much i can rent this . For that price . Absolutely. Its just right book your just right rental at thrifty. Com. Its just right for your worst sore throat pain, try Vicks Vapocool drops. Its not candy, its powerful relief. Ahhh vaporize sore throat pain with Vicks Vapocool drops and try new vapocool spray. Quitting smoking is freaking hard. St, like quitting every monday hard. Quitting feels so big. So, try making it smaller. And youll be surprised at how easily starting small. Can lead to something big. Start stopping with nicorette what does this impeachment of President Trump actually do . What does it require . When Speaker Pelosi formally gavelled in these house votes, it was a constitutional requirement for the senate. Begin a trial of the president , and there is no debate about that requirement. Well, under the senate rules were required to take it up if the house does go down that path, and well follow the senate rules. Trial of donald trump will define him in history and provide a frame work for americans to assess evidence of his conduct heading into this campaign. No other president has ever run for office after impeachment because no other president got themselves impeached this quickly. So this matters, and the battling has already begun over how to run the trial. Senate leaders jousting over these past examples. But there are very few precedence because theres only been, as you have heard by now, two president ial trials in all of history. So right now we turn to one of the most momentum special reports we have done here, what do the rules require when the president is put on trial and how does it go down . Well, the answer differs from most government proceedings. We will talk you through amazing examples and footage. The trial of a president basically has three layers. The first is the constitution, which has ironclad rules for the trial and a high bar for kicking president s out of office. Now, thats set in stone. Totally unchangeable. The second layer are the Current Senate rules originally passed in 1986 that provide how the trial runs. When you hear senators say what the rules require, theyre usually talking about these rules. And then there is the third layer. And thats where the senate just makes up new rules as it goes along, which is different than every other trial in america and different than every other day in congress. So other than those requirements i mentioned in the constitution, the senate can actually change most of the trial rules with a bare majority of just 51 votes. You can think of this as the jazz layer which senators can go full miles davis and improvise throughout the trial as long as they have 50 other senators willing to jam with them. Now more than that in a moment. But now we begin like america, with the constitution, which grants the power to charge, to impeach to the house. So only the congress, the house, may impeach. In bill clintons case, henry hide formally presented the articles. I hearby deliver these articles of impeachment. Thats what it looks like. And the constitution says when the house does that, the senate shall try the case, and it must replace the usual presiding officer, currently Vice President mike sense with the chief justice of the supreme court. So we know what that looks like. During the clinton area, it was william remembinquist. Do you kswear that pertainin to the impeachment of William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you got . Trumps trial will be presided over by john roberts, a conservative who is known for sometimes breaking with republicans on political matters. It limits the president s power. So trump cannot pardon impeachment cases. He cant pardon himself if he were convicted. But thats about it for that constitutional side. The rest of this turns on the side rules, which tee up a public indignity for any impeached president , just like any other defendant facing legal problems, an officer of the law brings the president a formal summons. So while trump saw this news like everyone else, we know from history a summons is still headed to his white house. Tonight as the sergeant in arms arrived at the white house with a summons, formally notifying the impeached president that he is now on trial, mr. Clintons lawyer said the white house is confident president clinton will not be convicted. You saw that. For Andrew Johnson, the summons was actually hand delivered to the white house. These same senate rules lay out how the senate can deal with any problems. They can actually provide frizz time enforced by the sergeant at arms for people who disrupt or talk during the trial. All persons are commanded to keep silent by the senate of the United States in the sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against William Jefferson clinton. Senators dont get to talk either because this is a trial and the senators are sort of transformed into jurors. That explains it. You dont see jurors stand up and give speeches at trials. So like them, if the senators have a question, they have to submit it reduced to writing, and then the chief justice handles it. So americans will see a jud