investigation, and what that means is that the law enforcement and intelligence professionals who opened that investigation, who carried out that investigation into what russia did, they, themselves, are now being targeted by the justice department for potential prosecution. the justice department has a history that is as varied as any part of the u.s. government. there have been attorneys general who have been sent to prison in this country for misusing the justice department to go after the enemies of the president. in this case, it being used on that investigation at this time, when the president is on the verge of being impeached feels like a very signal moment. leave it at that. leave it there way. leave it at that. that does it for us tonight. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." >> we'll have former federal prosecutor joining us in this hour to consider what this

breaking news means tonight. as you've been covering it for the hour, it broke minutes before you went on. and i studied that "new york times" article. none of the reporting, none of it, gives the slightest hint of what the crime might be. >> yeah. >> that would be investigated in this criminal investigation, which makes it so very peculiar. because, in fact, it's extremely difficult for an fbi agent to commit a crime in the course of his or her investigative duties. it is extremely difficult for a prosecutor to commit a crime and very difficult for cia officer to commit a crime in the kind of investigation we're talking about, other than some form of perjury, some form of untruth delivered in an under oath environment. and there actually isn't very much of that environment controlling what they do most of the time.

>> right. >> and so this could be kind of a shell of a criminal investigation, one of the many, many, many legitimate criminal investigations that the justice department has conducted in its history that produce no charges, but the president and republicans now get to say, get to deflect, fox news gets to say the most important investigation in the world right now is not the impeachment investigation of the president of the united states. it's this other thing that no matter how long we stare at it tonight, we can't quite figure out what it is, what's the crime they're investigating. >> right. and what we're left with is the president and his supporters having alleged that the law enforcement and intelligence professionals who investigated what russia did, who investigated this crime, they've been denounced as traitors, right? people who should be subject to capital punishment as traitors in this country for having

engaged in that investigation. the president has been saying that for two years, chanting it at rallies and he finally got himself enough attorney general who watches enough fox news and echo the stuff enough that he is willing to put it in legalese as well. an empowered criminal inquiry that could lead to criminal charge against the investigators who looked into this thing for the country. who they really have been saying are guilty of the worst things that you can charge an american with. i don't know the depths of what bill bar is planning to do here. we'll have coverage of all the breaking news of the hour, especially coverage of impeachment at this hour including a corroborating witness for ambassador william taylor who is scheduled to testify next week in that investigation. the impeachment investigation of donald trump was suspended today in honor of elijah cummings who,

only 30 days ago -- just 30 days ago he was named as one of the leaders of the impeachment investigation, his role as chairman of the oversight committee. he died last week from medical complications. today he became the first african-american member of congress, first african-american elected official in history brought to lie in state in the capital. eugene robinson will join us at the end of the hour to share his memories of the life and times of the honorable elijah cummings. the first guest, congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez will share what it was like to take her place in the house and chairman cummings being her guide, welcoming her to that committee. she has changed the definition of the possible for freshmen members of the house of

representatives. she has captured more public attention than any freshmen member of the house of representatives in history. and in politics, attention is power. without the attention, congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez has brought to the green new deal, it would not be one of the most prominent issues debated in the presidential campaign and without the professionalism that she has brought to her legislative agenda in the house, she would not have a senate partner on the green new deal, which is absolutely mandatory for any realistic legislative enterprise. like an old pro at legislating, the congresswoman found a partner in ed markey, who has pushed the green new deal on the agenda in the senate. no reason to expect leadership like that from a freshman member in the house. we've never seen leadership from a freshman member of the house.

she has changed what is possible in committee hearings by the sharpness and inescapable logic of their questions in the five minutes that they are allowed to ask them. congresswoman ocasio-cortez did that yesterday in what became five of the worst minutes of mark zuckerberg's very rich life of the ceo of facebook, who has gotten through most of the years of his life without ever having to answer difficult questions. we'll show you some of that video of what mark zuckerberg ran into yesterday when alexandria ocasio-cortez got her five minutes. we begin with impeachment. as luck would have it, alexandria ocasio-cortez is a member a house oversight committee, contrary to republican congressman matt gates' lies as he was leading his congressional drunk driving collision with the committees yesterday there are, in fact, dozens of republican members of

the house who are also allowed to participate in and ask questions in the investigation, including in the closed door depositions, because they are members of the investigating committees. republican senator lindsey graham is introducing a resolution in the senate to object to the procedures being used by the house of representatives. we will consider his objections later in this hour when we will be joined by joyce vance and wendy sherman. most republicans are supporting lindsey graham's resolution but in what could be an ominous sign as of tonight eight republican senators have chosen not to support lindsey graham's resolution, including mitt romney, senator susan collins, lisa murkowski. if just half of those eight senators were to join with democrats in the senate and vote against donald trump in his impeachment trial then a

majority of the senate would be voting against the president. which would be an important note for history, even though the president could remain in power because it takes 67 votes to convict and remove a president in an impeachment trial in the senate. joining us now is congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, covering portions of the bronx and queens in new york city. congresswoman thank you for joining us tonight on this very important news night. i want to get your reaction to what is happening in the impeachment investigation, beginning quickly with that very strange car crash of a scene we saw of matt gates leading a physical attack into the committee to disrupt it. >> yeah. lawrence, well, first and foremost, i remember seeing, you know, that sea of men banging outside of house intelligence, thinking it was quite funny,

because many of them are my colleague colleagues on the house oversight committee and have access to those depositions, so they were pretending that they weren't able to be in these depositions, like many members of congress, republican and democrat alike, in order to create a spectacle. the truth of the matter is that it's not that -- the reason they were doing that, because they knew exactly what was going on inside. they know exactly what this testimony and what these depositions are adding up to and that, frankly, it is revealing a very disturbing sequence of events and very likely abuse of power and breaking of our oath to the constitution of the united states. >> i know you were in ambassador gordon sondland's close door deposition there. we had congressman peter welch with us the other night. and after william taylor testified in direct contradiction of ambassador sondland, let's listen to what congressman welch said about the

possibility of perjury charges there. is gordon sondland in danger of perjury charges of his testimony to your committee? >> i think he is. the evidence is coming out now that he, in fact, was a very active instrument to try to essentially assist giuliani in the effort to have this rogue foreign policy. so, yes, i think ambassador sondland has some reason to be worried about how his testimony is going to be evaluated when reviewed by potential prosecutors. >> and today ambassador sondland's criminal defense lawyers relied on the do not recall defense to cover the conflict in his testimony with ambassador taylor's testimony. what is your sense of how much possible perjury charge danger ambassador sondland is in? >> i think a lot of what we're seeing here does reveal a decent amount of testimony that, frankly, just isn't lining up. this is exactly why in the house

of representatives we separate all of our witnesses and depose them individually and in private, so we can get these stories down and see what adds up and what doesn't. that is also a major reason why these republicans are fighting to perhaps make all of this public. you know, it is known that this is done with the blessing of the president. and perhaps one of the reason they're fighting for all of thist testimony to be public is so that folks could potentially line up their depositions. we don't know. but with respect to ambassador sondland, you know, the fact that they're relying on this do not recall. let's see what comes out, i do not think bodes very well for him. once again, we have more kep depositions left to go and we have to get all the fact. >> it's been a very sad week for you and the members of the house and the committee in particular with the loss of chairman cummings. what's it like for you to, first

of all, be welcomed on to that committee by elijah cummings? >> it was the complete honor of a lifetime when i first asked to be assigned to the house oversight committee. he brought me into his office personally and really wanted to know not just why i wanted to be on this committee, but he wanted to know who i was, and it was a real testimony to who elijah cummings was as a leader. he cared about serving the most vulnerable americans, about bringing truth to light, about speaking truth to power and unlike the -- contrary to the culture of congress, which is so focused on the power of seniority he, as speaker pelosi mentioned today earlier this year said i want all the freshmen on my committee. he was a relentless coach. he was an inspired mentor, and he believed and invested time in each and every one of us.

and i feel profoundly blessed to have spent the last ten months with our chairman. >> it seems at this point certain that the house of representatives is going to deliver articles of impeachment, at least one, to the united states senate for trial, which leaves the senators in the posture of jurors. some of them are actually refraining from comment on the basis of being jurors. we've seen this before, when the clinton senate jury was assembled. it's unlike a court jury where you're not allowed to make any comment. they can decide ahead of time how they're going to vote. some have announced that, some of them don't. what is your sense of how the presidential candidates who are going to be jurors, about five of them now, senator sanders, the candidate you endorsed, through elizabeth warren, cory booker, amy klobuchar, how they should handle themselves as the prospect of being potential

senate jurors as the possibility of a trial becomes more serious? >> first and foremost, it's important to note that the president has committed crimes in public. this is something that we know. this is something that all people know from, you know, the green of the white house he solicited election interference and discussed election interference with respect to china. he released public notes of his calls where he solicited and engaged in using the power of his office to create a politically motivated investigation against a political opponent. so, this is all out in the public. we know that he has committed a crime. the question is, how many other people are implicated in this? the question is, how often did he do it? did he do it in other circumstances? how big does this get? and so with respect to the number of articles, i think that it's fair to say let's look at

what rolls in. with respect to ukraine and several other instances it's a very open and shut case. i think it's important that we discuss the fact that he has committed impeachable crimes. it's just a question of how many and how many people were involved and who knew. >> in addition to your work in the committees and investigative committees you've also become very active in the political campaign, actively campaigning for bernie sanders, endorsing ed markey in massachusetts, endorsing attorney cisneros in texas. you're spreading your endorsements around the electoral map. how much of that is something that is distracting from your daily work in the house? >> well, i put my work in the house front and center. but what i do believe that these endorsements are part of the work that we have to do in the house. very frequently someone will say, we can't pass a green new

deal. we don't have support for that. oh, medicare for all is, quote, unquote, unfeasible, because we may not have support in certain areas of the house. if we want to change that, then we need to be changing the map of the house. and we need to be protecting those folks who are leading and are taking political risks in order to serve the people of the united states of america. and so my work, first and foremost, informs the other work that i do to organize the electorate. it is important to acknowledge that in order to pass a transform active agenda for working class americans, we've got to have the numbers and we've got to have the leadership in place. and so we have to play in both if we're really going to change this country and if we're serious about that. >> i want to take a look at what your five minutes with mark zucker perg was like yesterday. we can squeeze a commercial break on the other side if you can stay with us. >> of course. >> thank you. we'll be right back with

congresswoman ocasio-cortez. oca. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ at outback, steak & oh no, it's gone.ck. phew, it's back with lobster mac & cheese. it's gone again. oh, it's back with shrimp now! steak & lobster starting at only $15.99. hurry in before these three are gone again. outback steakhouse.

with tender crisp technology. the best of pressure cooking and air frying are now in one pot. and only the ninja foodi has tender crisp technology, so you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. you may never need another appliance ever again. the ninja foodi pressure cooker. the pressure cooker that crisps.

many members of congress frequently ignore, asking sharp questions in hearings. here is freshman congresswoman katie porter questioning mark zuckerberg yesterday about how he runs facebook. >> you've got about 15,000 contractors watching murders, stabbings, suicides, other

gruesome, disgusting videos for content moderation. correct? >> congresswoman, yes, i believe that that's correct. >> you pay many of those workers under $30,000 a year and you've cut them off from mental health care when they leave the company even if they have ptsd because of their work for your company? >> then came freshman congresswoman ocasio-cortez mark zuckerberg on why he refuses to fact check political advertising on facebook. >> the official policy of facebook now allows politicians to pay to spread disinformation in 2020 elections and in the future. so i just want to know how far i can push this in the next year. under your policy using census data as well, could i pay to predominant predominantly black zip codes and advertise the wrong election date? >> no, congresswoman, you

couldn't. for even these policies around the newsworthiness that politicians say that in the general principle -- >> but you said you're not going to fact check my ads. >> we have -- if anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause -- that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm or census suppression, we will take the content down. >> so you will -- there is some threshold where you will fact check political advertisements, is that what you're telling me? >> well, congresswoman, yes, for specific things like that, where there's immeant risk of harm. >> could i run ads targeting republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the green new deal. >> sorry, could you repeat that? >> would i be able to run advertisements on facebook targeting republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the green new deal?

i'm just trying to understand the bounds here, what's fair game. >> congresswoman, i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. >> so you don't know if i'll be able to do that. >> congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is back with us. the simplest question you asked him was the one he needed you to repeat, and one of the things i'm wondering is, does he even understand that all republicans oppose the green new deal and, therefore, your ad would be a lie? it's not clear to me that he actually understood that underlying element of your question. >> yeah. you know, and the key is that if he didn't understand that, he should have asked and clarified. but instead he just immediately went for the probably, yeah. and when you pair that with the fact that facebook has officially made its policy that it will not fact check paid

political advertisement, that they will take money in order to publish and spread disinformation is extraordinarily concerning. and, by the way, this is also why i asked in addition to this line of questioning about what mark zuckerberg knew about cambridge analytica and what he did about it. this is extremely concerning. we're not just talking about rehashing the 2016 election and the disinformation campaign. we're talking about whether facebook is going to play a role in affirmativeely allowing the disinformation campaigns into the 2020 u.s. election. and if that is the case, we need to take action. i believe we need to take preemptive action and we need to take action right now. >> when you were closing in on him on cambridge analytica, reporters who cover mark

zuckerberg very closely for years have been tweeting on the edge of their seats that they've never been able to get these questions in front of him. but he did kind of just slither away from those questions. >> yes. matter of fact what we decided to do after he answered in very frankly strange and bizarre ways to those questions is that we are actually going to send follow-up questions, pen them to the record of the hearing and send them to facebook for an official answer to these questions. we need to get it on the record. we need to know whether mark zuckerberg knew. we need to know who in facebook's leadership knew about cambridge analytica and we need to know whether they decided to do nothing while the 2016 were being manipulated and ferf they're deciding to do nothing again. if that's the case they're not the innocent bystanders they say that they are. they may be active participants. we don't know. for that we have to get to the

bottom of this. we need to understand what role they are deciding to play, especially given the light of the fact that they are going to take money to public disinformation ads from political campaigns. broadcasters are held to a much higher standard. while they cannot discriminate on what kind of advertisements they run, there is a base level of fact checking that must go on. and so for this, in order for him to go far below that standard raises very serious questions about the integrity of the information that people are receivin receiving. >> would facebook make enough mopey to survive if they don't have that income? >> that's an excellent question. full disclosure, i am a candidate that runs facebook ads. but even given that, that was a very common question. some folks have noted that the night before my hearing, i took to twitter. ironically enough.

and i asked the public, what would you want to know from mark zuckerberg, and one of the most common questions i got from people here in the united states and around the world is why don't you just ban political ads if you're not even going to put in the resources to fact check them? and i think it's a very legitimate question. if facebook doesn't want to put in the very basic investments of fact checking on a very essential level, then why should they take the money to run these ads at all? they didn't always run them. i think it's a natural question of should you run them if you're not going to fact check them? >> congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, thank you for starting us off tonight. >> of course. thank you. >> thank you. a witness being deposed next week will corroborate ambassador william taylor's damning testimony against donald trump in the impeachment investigation. that's next. impeachment investigation. that's next. always a catch.

like somehow you wind up getting less. but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks. i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. bleeding disorderste medlike hemophilia.s so victor can keep doing what's in his blood. at bayer, this is why we science.

oh no,... ...a cougher. welcome to flu season, karen. is a regular flu shot strong enough... ...to help prevent flu in someone your age? there are standard-dose flu shots. and then there's the superior flu protection... ...of fluzone high-dose. it's the only 65 plus flu shot... ...with 4 times the standard dose. and it's free with medicare part b. fluzone high-dose is not for those who've had a severe allergic reaction... ...to any vaccine component, including... ...eggs, egg products,... or after a previous dose of flu vaccine. tell your healthcare professional if you've ever experienced severe muscle weakness... ...after receiving a flu shot. if you notice ...other problems or symptoms following vaccination,... ...contact your healthcare professional immediately. side effects include pain, swelling... ...and redness where the shot was given. other side effects may occur. vaccination may not protect everyone. if you're 65 plus, don't settle for a standard-dose flu shot. influenza...going down. move up to fluzone high-dose. see your doctor or pharmacist and ask for it by name.

breaking news, new reporting tonight that another witness who will testify next week to the impeachment investigating committ committees pressuring the president of ukraine to publicly announce the investigation of joe biden for security assistance that was already authorized by congress and that the president had no legal right to block or to use as a bargaining chip for his political campaign. that witness next week will be tim morrison. a top ranking europe and russia adviser on the national security council in the trump white

house. tonight "the washington post" is reporting that robert lighthezer withdrew a recommendation to restore trade privileges after john bolton then national security adviser, warned him that president trump probably would oppose any action that benefited the government of kyiv. former national security adviser john bolton, marie yovanovitch. ellen farkas is with us, secretary of state in the obama administration and former u.s. attorney, and matt miller former spokesperson for attorney general eric holder, all are msnbc analysts. and i want to start with the story rachel spent her hour with, and rachel and i began discussing.

matt miller i would like to begin with you on this. the idea that the barr justice department is now officially launched a criminal investigation of the beginnings of the investigation of russian interference in the 2016 electio election. >> i think it's the most concerning development out of the justice department since donald trump became president. if there was a crime committed obviously it ought to be investigated. but we know more about the origins of the russian probe. bob mueller wrote a 450 page report that became public, fisa investigation, something it's never been done in its history, extensive reporting. we've never seen single evidence of a crime, not even allegation of a crime, something that would give a predicate to an investigation. i think it's notable that in this story tonight it doesn't say what the allegation of the crime is that the department is now investigating. you know, i know john durham.

i worked with him when eric holder appointed him to investigate alleged torture by officers at the cia. if i thought he were running this investigation alone i would have confidence in it. bill barr has been micromanaging this, flying around the world to interrogate foreign officials about what happened. i don't think it's a coincidence that the day after an ambassador goes up to the hill and gives incredibly damning testimony about the president extorting a foreign government that we see this leak from the department of justice. it's incredibly concerning about the administration of justice and the rule of law in this country. >> joyce vance, if he is an honorable straight shooting prosecutor, nothing for anyone to worry about. >> well, that's true and it's not unheard of for prosecutors to use a grand jury investigation to close out allegations that aren't warranted. after all, if you want to leave folks with the conclusion that you left no stone unturned

before you close an investigation without any indictments, this is a pretty good way to do it. and durham has that sort of reputation. nonetheless, as matt says, this is deeply concerning. the inspector general was already running an administrative investigation to see whether there had been any misconduct by anyone involved in the origins of the investigation. so it's always been troubling to have these parallel investigations, particularly one where the attorney general of the united states, you know, a person with a pretty full plate and a lot of work to do seems so involved that he was investing the time to fly all around the world. always been very troubling. >> joyce, let me get one more question on this. before we turn to the story that maybe this story is intended to divert which, of course, is the story of the investigation of the president. and that is, i spent an hour trying to figure out, okay, what crime, what crime can you possibly be investigating here? because it is not easy for fbi

agents to commit crimes in the course of their duties. it's not easy for prosecutors to do that. it's not easy for cia officials to do that. there has some some sort of crime. the most likely thing seems to be something involving at least some kind of charge of perjury or a cousin of perjury somewhere in the law, some kind of false statement being made buchlt procedural irregularities are corrected by defendants that the investigators use procedural irregularities against. they're corrected by the appeals process and trials and all that sort of thing. i can't figure out what they could be possibly seriously investigating as a crime here. >> so what you're seeing, i think, is extremely important. and that point is that if there are prosecutors or investigators who do things that are wrong in the course of an investigation, that comes to light during

prosecution, and defendants have the opportunity to move to dismiss the indictment or judges exclude evidence or in extreme cases a conviction can be overturned. and so you're exactly right about that. chuck rosenberg and i had this conversation earlier tonight. and the cousin of perjury that we came up with was 18 u.s. code, 10001, false statements o a leak to do with this investigation. it's very difficult to contemplate what the federal crime that investigators would be looking at so hard could possibly be. >> ellen farkas, next week tim morrison testify iing. you know tim morrison. >> i do. >> what do you expect? >> i think it will be different from bill taylor's testimony. he was a voluntary, super friendly witness. he wanted to go and give the 911

report on everything he knew, the details. tim is a different story. a political appointee. however he worked a long time on the house foreign affairs committee, in the house and the senate. he knows the constitution. i do not believe he will lie but i don't believe he will offer voluntarily fullsome information necessarily. it remains to be seen. he may surprise us and is be more forthcoming but may play it more safe as it relates to the president. >> wendy sherman, as the evidence closes in on the president, we are not hearing from any republican in the house or the senate a single comment on the evidence. you have matt gates leading this kind of congressional drunk driving rampage through the halls of the house to crash into the room. you have lindsey graham introducing a senate resolution, taking issue with how the house

is doing business, meaningless document you could possibly raise. the idea of the house ever criticizing the senate or the senate ever criticizing the house is the most meaningless thing you can do. no one on the republican side is talking about the evidence. >> i think we're seeing two things. one, because there is no substance they can attack. they are doing all process and they're actually acting in pretty silly and ridiculous and absurd kinds of ways as well as putting national security at risk by bringing their cell phones into the scif, into the secure area in the house. that really is against the law what they did but also makes us vulnerable to russian and chinese hacking, getting into the phones and knowing what's going to go on there. they're going to have to clean out the scif again and reseal t we're seeing intimidation tactics that you were discussing with joyce and matt. you're lael saying to witnesses who come forward, be careful what you do, because we may come after you.

and, indeed, all of these people who are coming forward are patriots, because they know they're going to get attacked. they think their commitment to the constitution is so deep that they're going to do it. and i quite agree with evelyn. i think we have to be very careful. i think tim morrison is going to be under tremendous pressure, unless he gets his statement out quickly, he will be under tremendous pressure to be pretty nuanced in what he says. >> evelyn, as congresswoman ocasio-cortez pointed out, some of the people who raided the room, republicans pretending to being locked out were members of the committee and had reserved seats in the room they could have been sitting in, which brings us to the fact that there's about 48 republican members of the house who have the right to be in every one of these depositions, listening to every word. we don't know how many of them are exercising that right and how many of them are spending their time doing something else. they are certainly in a position to reveal any evidence that they

hear in that room that's helpful to donald trump. and we have silence from all 48 of them. >> right. i've been in that room. i actually testified. part of the intimidation is not just being in the face of the witness, which was pretty much what they did to laura cooper, my successor once removed from the defense department, but also it's intimidating when you have to hire a private lawyer, right? it costs a lot of money when you're a government official. that's not in your household budget. there are all levels of intimidation and, yes, if they had something they could reveal, you better believe they would have leaked it if it was helpful to them. there's nothing exonerating donald trump thus far. >> and, matt miller, ambassador sondland, who one member of the committee told me the other night is in danger of perjury charges because william taylor completely disagrees with ambassador sondland on key discussions that those two had. ambassador sondland is one of those rich guys who can afford

the very best criminal defense lawyers and today they came out with the he does not recall defense. they are attributing to their client that he does not recall the conversation in which william taylor now is certainlily saying gordon so sondland lied under oath. >> he does have a very good criminal defense attorney, the same attorney that got karl rove out of indictment when it appeared he lied to the grand jury. even before bill taylor testified, he wanted you to believe that all the time he was pushing for investigation into barisma and talking to the president about this investigation, talking to others in the administration and outside, people like rudy giuliani, he had no idea that meant into an investigation into joe and hunter biden, that had no connection to the president's political opponents. that was hard to believe on its face. if there's another witness that

could come forward and say gordon sondland said to me this is all about joe biden. he knew everything that it was about. add on top of it the contradictions that appear between his testimony and taylor's. you have to look at which one of them would have a motive to lie. bill taylor has no reason to come up and lie to the committee. gordon sondland very much does. if i were him i would be very concerned that there's a referral to department of justice not under this administration, bill barr's not going to do anything but a new administration may not take so kindly to members of congress that go up and lie to president-elect the president of the united states. let's listen to trey gowdy defending exactly the way this investigation is being conducted behind closed doors. he actually offer this had defense in 2015. let's listen to this. >> i could just tell you that of the 50 some odd interviews we have done thus far, the vast

majority of them have been private and you don't see the bickering among the members of congress in private interviews. you don't see any of that. the private ones always produce better results. >> wendy sherman, the republicans seem to have no memory of their own conduct. >> indeed. not only during the benghazi hearings, but during the clinton impeachment hearings, much of it was done behind closed doors. these are house rules under which adam schiff and the rest of the house committees are operating. as you point ed out at the beginning, 48 members, including kevin mccarthy in his role as minority leader, get to sit in on those hearings and there's equal time for questions and they have been following that rule. so the republicans get as much time as the democrats to ask questions. nothing has come out that doesn't corroborate what we heard particularly from bill taylor. >> and the republican staff is filled in the chairs in the

background of that room, so many republican attorneys to re veal helpful information that comes out in those depositions to the president. they're not doing it. we have the right to believe no helpful information is coming out. we'll have to break it here. former ambassador wendy sherman, joyce vance, ellen farkas, matt mill miller, thank you for joining us. the debate we really want to see is senator lindsey graham debate congressman lindsey graham of 20 years ago. what that very intense heated debate would look like when you see lindsey graham contradicting lindsey graham about closed door depositions in the impeachment proceeding of a president. impet proceeding of a president. ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle.

and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. ♪

but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands?

to the wait did frowe just win-ners. prouders everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime so you only pay for what you need. it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. call, click, or visit a store today.

here is lindsey graham explaining why closed door depositions are the best possible way for committees to discover impeachable offenses. >> depositions will determine whether or not we go forward with hearings. the very smart thing to do is depose these people and find out what they've got to say, not drag this thing out unnecessarily. >> that was 21 years ago. since then, lindsey graham has learned to tie a neck tie and today he was saying exactly the opposite and lying while he's at it. >> they've created a process into intel committee that's

behind closed doors, doesn't provide access to the president's accuser, shuts republicans out for all practical purposes and is an unworthy substitute for the way you need to do it. is at its core unamerican. >> lindsey graham continued to push the republican lie that republicans are, as he put it, shut out of the closed door depositions in the house of representatives. every republican member of the committees conducting those depositions is allowed to attend toes depositions and ask questions in those depositions. 48 republican members of the house of representatives. remember that number, 48 are allowed to attend all of the closed door depositions and ask as many questions as they want and not one of those 48 republicans has attempted in any way to contradict any of the testimony that they have heard against president trump in those depositions. eight republican senators have so far refused to co-sponsor

lindsey graham's senate resolution, criticizing impeachment procedures of the house of representatives. every one of those republican senators knows that donald trump wants their names on that resolution immediately and as of tonight, they are defying linds resolution, as of now, is showing you that donald trump's republican line of defense in the united states senate is not as solid as some people thought it appeared to be until lindsey graham made the mistake of asking all republican senators to put their names on a frivolous resolution that has no meaning and will have no impact on the impeachment process. joining our discussion now, eugene robinson, associate editor and pulitzer prize winning columnist for "washington post" and sam stein, politics editor of the "daily beast" is with us. they're both msnbc analysts. and, sam, the lindsey graham versus lindsey graham debate is the one i want to see. >> yeah, i mean, we both know, think everyone knows, that lindsey knows better than this, certainly having been involved

in it 20 years ago he knows the particulars about the roprocess. what he's essentially saying is he wants the senate trial to be the house impeachment process. that's what he's saying. the question is why is he doing this? and that's sort of been the question throughout lindsay graham's conduct during the trump administration, why do this? to a degree, it's sacrificing of his reputation. to a degree, it's a sacrificing of his dignity. i'm not sure how far it gets him. i've talked to a bunch of people in and around the president's political orbit over the past couple days about how they feel this process is going and to a person, they think lindsey graham is letting them down. they don't care for pointless resolutions like the one that he introduced today. they think they're largely immaterial and superficial. what they really want him do, they want him to use his perch as the chair of the senate judiciary committee and call people up to testify to his committee that might be involved in this allegation against hunter biden or john brennan type. so far, lindsey graham has refused to do that saying, well, if he had to do that, the minority party would be able to

call their witnesses as well. he's right about that. but to the point of lindsey graham's reputation, it's interesting to see him go to this length to try to cover for donald trump and still piss off people who are close to donald trump. >> and eugene robinson, my explanation for lindsey graham is there is absolutely nothing he will not do to get re-elected in south carolina, and it doesn't matter that much to him what the white house thinks about what he's doing. what he cares about is what do south carolina republican voters think about what he's doing to protect donald trump, and if it looks good to them, that will work for lindsey graham. >> well, that's certainly his -- his prime objective is to assure his re-election. i mean, it's been clear over the years he just wants to get re-elected imperpetuity. i don't think there's any point to not getting re-elected. so he's going to do what he has to do and what he has to do in the context of south carolina republican party is, at least

for now, stick close to dronald tru trump. so that's what he does. but sam is right, this ineffectual resolution has no impact whatsoever is not what donald trump would really like to get out of lindsey graham. he's in a very powerful position in the senate and -- and trump believes he can be carrying his water in a more meaningful way. and he's not prepared to do that and so he's kind of in the middle. >> and sam, so far, what lipndsy graham's accomplished is to identify for us eight republican senators who are leaning against the republican talking points, certainly, on the impeachment investigation of donald trump. >> i mean, that's remarkable to me because this resolution is ceremonial at best. it will have no bearing on the house impeachment process. it's merely a way to get through a news cycle without the president berating you. and yet, eight members of the

president's own party are not putting their names on this resolution. i expect some of them eventually will, but it's an embarrassment. this was done to make the president feel good about himself and will have an opposite impact. trump will have to look at this and say, okay, if a trial comes to the senate, i know at least eight members are not willing to buy into my process arguments that i've been using to demean the entire impeachment proceeding. >> we're going to have to leave it there. sam stein, thank you very much for joining us torrent. >> sure thing. >> gene robinson, please stay with us. when we come back, we will reflect on the congressional career of the honorable elijah cummings. that's next. performance comes in lots of flavors. there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about.

♪ but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? with your dna results from ancestry®. i was able to discover one cousin, reached out to him, visited ireland,

met another 20 cousins. they took me to the cliffs of moher, the ancestral home, the family bar. it really gives you a sense of connection to... something that's bigger than yourself. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up. this is a critical moment in our country's history. don't be fooled. and it is a moment which people will be talking about and reading about 300, 400, 500 years from now and they're going to ask the question, what did

you do when we had a president who -- who knew the rules and knew that our founding fathers had done a great job of creating a constitution and had put in all the guardrails but never anticipate that we would have a president that would just throw away the guardrails. >> congressman elijah cummings. eugene robinson is back with us, and eugene, it was just 23 years ago that elijah cummings made that 25-minute trip down from baltimore to washington, and i got to say, he seemed like a senior member about, i don't know, 90 days in. >> exactly. he -- he sort of leapt up the seniority chart in a pretty natural way. he was -- you know, i have a good friend who went to howard university with him, and he

always told me that the elijah cummings you see now is the elijah cummings you saw then. he was destined even at that point to have the sort of impact on people's lives and determined to make people's lives better. you know, he was that rare person who walked the talk in every aspect of his life. he was passionate. he was sincere. brilliant. a fierce defender of the city of baltimore and the people of baltimore. and he meant what he said. and that's really why people listened to him and why you saw that really heartfelt outpouring in his memory today at the capitol. it was quite stunning. >> eugene robinson, thank you very much for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. >> good to be here zbl. and now for tonight's "last word." >> i'm hoping that all of us can

get back to this democracy that we want and that we should be passing on to our children so that they can do better than what we did. when we're dancing with the angels, the question will be asked, in 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? >> the honorable elijah cummings gets tonight's "last word." "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. >> the breaking news we're covering here tonight with "the new york times" reporter who broke it. while some had passed it off as a right-wing fantasy, trump's man, a.g. bill barr has seen to it that the justice department's investigation into the origins of the trump russia probe is now real enough to impanel a grand jury, issue subpoenas, file charges and make arrests. and the timing remains interesting as the democrats narrow in on potential impeachment charges now that they have a mountain of evidence. and amid the f