when "all in" starts right of conduct is predictable, i predict we'll get a lot of it in now. good evening from chicago. i'm chris hayes. the future. and that's why we think of and we are now less than 14 hours away from public tomorrow hearings and those to impeachment hearings of the president of the united states for just the fourth time in all follow truly matters, because it locks in our destiny. of american history. and that's "hardball" for now. those hearings will be broadcast "all in" with chris hayes starts live across every major broadcast and cable news network right now. tonight on "all in." for americans to watch. that coverage starts right here >> most americans i don't on msnbc at 9:00 in the morning. but even before the hearings we believe are tuned, they will be have known from the get-go, from now. >> the eve of the public first the very first piece of publicly impeachment hearing between president trump and ukraine. released evidence, the notes of >> the president abused his power, and this is coming from president trump's call with the president of ukraine, the the mouth of patriotic president tried to coerce the diplomats. >> tonight what to expect leader of a foreign occupied tomorrow. just who is testifying and what country to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. are they going to reveal? the ukrainian president told >> we've got some lawless people in some very high positions. they're lawless. president trump he was ready to >> then john bolton spills the buy more american weapons he beans on what he thinks responded infamously, quote, i would like you do coo us a favor motivates trump's foreign no. and said, quote, a lot of people policy. >> john wasn't in line with what want to find out about that so we were doing. whatever you can do. >> plus the bipartisan push to since the elise of that document we have learned from dozens and prevent an execution in texas

dozens of hours of closed door and new testimony from a former congressional testimony that trump's phone call was just one trump campaign official seems to moment in a far reaching contradict the president on operation involving the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, two giuliani associates who have since been indicted partially for their role in the scheme. white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, the attorney general, the secretary of energy, the secretary of state, the vice president of the united states, and of course president trump himself. tomorrow two opening witnesses are expected to describe the scope of the scheme to extort ukraine. that includes bill taylor who was the acting u.s. ambassador of ukraine at this very moment. west point grad who was awarded the bronze star for service in vietnam. he's a career diplomat and worked in republican and democratic administrations since all the way back in 1985. he served in afghanistan shortly after the u.s. invaded that country mooch he oversaw reconstruction in iraq. he previously served once before as the u.s. ambassador to ukraine under george w. bush.

last month he testified he was reluctant to go back to kiev because what he had learned under rudy giuliani. and, quote, are we now saying that security assistance and a white house meeting are conditioned on investigations, and i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. taylor also told congress he believes the origin of the idea to extort the ukrainian president came from rudy giuliani to benefit president trump. taylor will be joined at the witness table by deputy assistant secretary of state george kent. kent also a diplomat who's been part of the foreign service for almost 30 years. he currently right now oversees state department policy towards ukraine. kent testified extensively about rudy giuliani's role in the scheme and his deposition

telling congress, quote, mr. giuliani had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information. it was clear he had influenced the president in terms of the way the president thought of ukraine. two men will be appearing before the 22-member house intelligence committee in the same room where hillary clinton testified before the benghazi committee. before any of the committee members will be allowed to ask questions committee chair adam schiff along with attorneys daniel goldman will get 45 minutes to question taylor and kent and then be followed for 45 minutes for ranking member nunes' and the minorities attorneys steve caster. he prosecuted organized crime syndicates and also a former msnbc contributor and has appeared on this very show a whole bunch of times. republican attorney steve caster spent 14 years as a lawyer for republicans on the overscythe committee. during the obama administration he was part of the benghazi

investigations and the probe into the justice department's operation fast and furious. and well-geet to see them tomorrow in the highest profile presentation evidence we've had so far. it seems worth pointing something out that's obvious but can get easily lost in the day to day news cycle. impeaching a president is a big deal. the spectacle is likely to be compelling but it's also a really true grave undertaking. it's not wrong when critics talk about how serious it is to attempt to remove a president who's elected. and it does not speak well for the state of our country we have come to a point where this process seems so urgently exceedingly necessary. i want to bring in congressman sean patrick maloney. congressman, it's good to have you. how are you preparing for tomorrow? >> well, you know, we are big believers in preparation, so i'm reviewing the testimony of the

key witnesses, making sure i'm up to speed on what ambassador taylor testified to the first time. but, you know, really, chris, the important thing tomorrow is not any of us on the dais, it's not the staff. the important thing tomorrow is this witness. it is all of these witnesses and their story and their evidence and facts. and what i hope for tomorrow is that all of us get out of the way, and that respectfully includes all of you folks in the media. and we let these dedicated public servants, a guy like bill taylor, you know, 40 years in the foreign service, vietnam veteran, served as an infantry officer in vietnam, west point graduate, highly credible, knowledgeable, experienced public servant appointed by a republican president -- let him tell his story. let him tell everything he knows and let the public see it unfiltered. and so i think the best preparation in some ways is going to be to exercise some

restraint and let these witnesses tell the story. >> restraint can be difficult for members of congress who are given to talking, no shade there. i am, too. i'm a cable news host. but you will have these staff attorneys asking questions, which is a sort of break from normal procedure, i think it's fair to say. take me through why that is the choice that's been made and why you think that's important and can help the witnesses tell their story. >> well, because of what i just said. because these witnesses really have an important story to tell. and it's not a happy story. it's a sad story of the abuse of power at the highest levels of the united states government. it should break peoples heart that this president, any american president would engage in this kind of shabby and seedy conduct for his own grimy political objectives. and what the staff can do is in a disciplined extended way guide

the witness through the testimony that they have to share, and really again let the witness speak and do so over an extended period of time of 45 minutes or so so it doesn't get all chopped up in five minute bunches, and the whole goal at least in my mind is to let this witness explain to the american public what they know and let the public judge for themselves. >> you know, after the full mueller report or at least the sort of redacted version of the mueller report was released, there was a split in the democratic party caucus, in the house about impeachment, about whether what was recounted in that mueller report or maybe some other things the president had done and necessitated a formal impeachment inquiry or not. you i believe were on the show saying you you wanted to take it slow, you were not convinced. obviously you changed. take me through where you were six months ago and where you are

now. >> well, you know, actually my position was he deserved it. the question was whether tactically the best way to hold him accountable was to put the c country through an impeachment process that was going to be based based on a report by a special counsel who found no provable conspiracy though a ton of evidence of obstruction of justice but whether balancing it was good to leave that accountable or through oversight, criminal liability late down the road. but, you know, this is totally new ball game. this has nothing to do in the most basic sense with the mueller probe at all. it's not a change. it's an evaluation of a new set of facts that are stark, that are extremely damaging to the president, that paint an unmistakable picture national security. and what the president did here cannot be okay. it kaept be okay for this president, any president to go out and extort the assistance of

a foreign leader for an advantage in an american political election. we let that happen and we set a devastating precedent, and an election itself won't even cure it in some sense. the congress has to take a stand. this is precisely bribery, foreign interference in the american system, it's precisely the kind of offense the founders contemplated when they drafted the impeachment provisions into the constitution. this is the way to hold the president accountable under these facts. >> member of the house intelligence committee which is holding the first public impeachment hearing tomorrow, thank you so much for taking a little time tonight. >> my pleasure. >> joining me now is a former federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york where she worked side by side with daniel goldman, the attorney that will lead the questioning for house democrats tomorrow. and also joining me jill who worked alongside daniel

goldman. i know him a bit from his appearances on my show. how do you think somebody like him approaches this role which is sort of a new one? it is the united states congress, but it is hearing or trial-like. >> yeah, it is certainly a new role, but it's one that he'll be comfortable with. there is good reason why chairman schiff brought in a seasoned veteran prosecutor, and danny goldman, i think, is among the best of the bunch. he's going to be direct. he's going to be focused. as congressman maloney said, he's going to make it about the witness. but he will direct the witness. i don't want to say he'll lead the witness, but he'll allow the witness or witnesses to tell their stories in a shape and in a form that makes sense, that is impactful, that has emotional appeal and that is unburdened by

distraction or irrelevant detail. so i think he's a great pick for this. and i think he will allow the stories to be told. >> jill, i saw some reporting about -- there's some polling about how democrats and donald trump are handling impeachment, and democrats are -- 52% say they're bad at handling impeachment, 48% good, the numbers worse for president trump. it strikes me here that there's an asymmetry which is that democrats want this to be grachb and serious and focused and republicans want people to come away concluding this is circus, this is crazy and they may have the wherewithal to do that. where do you see the control of the flow of the day going tomorrow? >> i fear that the republicans will do as you suggested, which is try to make this a circus. i hope that americans will see that for what it is, which is a diversion from what the facts are and a diversion from what they should be hearing.

i cannot but imagine that the questions asked will be very limited and that the answers will be where the focus is. we know already from what we've heard about the testimony behind closed doors that there is a very compelling story line. and i think that's what we need to focus on is that the story needs to be told. the best thing that happened is getting rid of the five-minute rule which was a real impediment to america hearing a narrative. this way you can ask the question and let the witness tell the story and let us know who and what and when and why and how they felt about it. and that we can understand the danger that was always in their minds to what the president was doing, a danger to our national security that really threatens democracy, and that's why tomorrow is so important. and i hope everyone will tune in and listen. >> one thing that's interesting here, and this i think relates

to what is kind of courtroom and trial practice, these are all folks who have given extensive testimony already. they've already given sworn testimony. a lot of that has has been released. what is that sort of approach for someone who is in danny goldman's role where you have this testimony before him and what you're trying to do with it when you're now in this public setting? >> look, he and the other questioners have laid the groundwork here. they have set the foundation. they have asked all the painstaking questions of the witnesses, they've established the facts. and there's thousands of pages of transcripts as you've said. their task tomorrow is to whittle it down, to pare down the important facts and to make sure that those get out and they are told in a linear and impactful way. and so they have done a lot of the work. and then tomorrow will be the

presentation. it's said that you can lose a jury in 20 minutes. and hopefully the american public will have longer attention span than that, but the narrative does need to come out quickly. and so rather than i think a lot of the questioning that we saw that was sort of -- you know, had to establish this fact and that fact and go along in a particular way tomorrow i think we can probably expect some right out of the box, you know, some hard-hitting questions that go right to it, that capture the attention and that, you know, will also tell the story but will tell it in a more attention grabbing way. >> jill, there's just in the last ten minutes i think the house intelligence committee has released a witness schedule past this week. it's going to be marie yovanovitch on friday and then

jennifer williams, alexander vindman, curt volker and tim morrismanch and russia's deputy fiona hill. it sounds like three of those witnesses i believe were requested by the minority and granted. that's quite a bit of testimony we're going to get over the next week and half. >> it is a lot, but if handled properly let's look at what happens in any trial, in an organized trial case. whoever thought my organized crime will be as relevant as my watergate experience, and it is. but i think it's not that hard for a jury to stay focused on what the questions are and what the answer are. and so far from what you've read of the summary of witnesses, it's very clear what the story is how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. and so what i think will happen is the the democrats are going to put forward each part of the

bricks, you know, brick one that says this is the fact. and then the second witness who corroborates one of those facts and a third witness who corroborates. and all together you're going to see a very impenetrable story line that's going to be very hard for the republicans to undo, and they have to pay attention to the facts and stop the nonsense with things like taking over the scif. >> thank you both for sharing your expertise tonight. coming up john bolton is yet to testify before the house, but it appears he'll tell you just about anything you want to know if you're paying the right price. know if you're paying the right price. en you rent from national. it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter]

(vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

former national security advisor john bolton has been playing an interesting game with regard to the impeachment inquiry. his deputies and people loyal to him, associated with him have testified before the committee including former national security senior director fiona

hill who offered bolton's damning assessment of the entire ukraine scheme, including the legendary phrase he did not want to be part of, quote, whatever drug deal u.s. ambassador eu gordon sondland and white house chief of staff mick mulvaney are cooking up on this. but bolton was a no-show last week for a deposition before the impeachment committee itself. one of his former deputies went to court to get a ruling on whether or not he can testify. bolton says he's willing to testify if the court delirs a way in that case. just last week bolton's own lawyer teased he has a story to tell. saying he was involved in many relerant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed. but what john bolton does seem focused on is making sure he can turn that information into money. he landed a book deal reportedly worth $2 million, and according

to exclusive reporting by my colleagues carol lee and stephanie ruhle. set the scene here. what was the context in which bolton was talking to this crew? >> he was talking to a bunch of hedge fund managers. it was a morgan stanley event last night, and he was basically the keynote speaker. and what he was told is this is off-the-record, those were the ground rules and we want you to be canal to speak candidly and bolton did. and he said a number of things that even people that were in atte attendance of his speech said they found surprising. there was some shock in the room particularly when bolton mentioned president trump's son-in-law jared kushner and daughter ivanka in a somewhat disparaging way to basically say, you know, if trump were to win another term that they would try to get him to recast his legacy in a way that makes him tilt towards the liberal end of

the spectrum, specifically he said according to people in the room that they would convince him to nominate a liberal like lawrence tribe to the supreme court. and it was described as him kind of talking about them with an eye rolling kind of way. meaning, it suggests that he didn't think much of them and their positions in the white house. >> i mean, i don't think that's a very good prediction on the part of mr. bolton, but he was working in the white house. what i found really striking was his characterization of the president's record particularly as it relates to turkey. turkey is one of these sort of foreign policy areas where the president has done a lot of things that are incredibly amenable to turkey strong man erdogan who's coming tomorrow. he obviously gave him the green light for that invasion of north eastern syria. what did he have to say about the turkey relationship? >> so what he said, chris, was that, you know, basically he

suggested that there's some sort -- something else driving the president's policy towards turkey. he said turkey was the most frustrating thing that trump would do in terms of policymaking. and, you know, that comes a mida lot of frustrations john bolton had. let's not forget he was vu-huntly opposed to him sitting down and doing diplomacy with john bolton. and that suggests there was some sort of business or personal motivation behind the way the president has approached turkey. and that's a striking comment obviously for a former national security advisor to say. >> i want to read from the piece. bolton says he believes there's a personal or business relationship as you just said dictating trump's position on turkey because none of his advisers are aligning with him on the issue. this comes the same day we have this reporting from "the new york times" all the back channels this white house has with turkey including with a

person trump essentially was in business with, who's been tasked by the erdogan government as one of the main points of contact, who throws conferences at the trump hotel and gets thevitinvi the oval office to work over on sanctions. >> there's this question about the trump administration and turkey -- look, every administration that's had to deal with president erdogan has struggled. that's a fact in terms of the policy. but this administration particularly has had a cloud over it really from the start when the comes to turkey. if you'll remember michael flynn, the first national security advisor of president trump's, he was doing some lobbying on behalf of turkey, he had taken actions designed to benefit the turkish government. and so there's been a swirl of sort of questions about the relationship between the trump white house and turkey. and it's hard to know because the poly issues and turkey is such a difficult ally to

navigate given its strategic position. it's hard to know where president trump's decisions are aligned in terms of his views are aligned with erdogan and he wants to get out of syria, for instance, and erdogan is offering him a solution and he's ready to take it or if there's something more nefarious there. >> great reporting. thank you so much. >> thanks, chris. >> still ahead the hits keep on coming from the roger stone trial. testimony today that indicates president trump may have lied to robert mueller. that's next. p may have lied to robert mueller that's next. t. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away

with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. more exciting than than getting a lexus... giving one. this is unbelievable! >>it really is. the lexus december to rembember sales event lease the 2020 rx 350 all wheel drive for $419 a month for 27 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain?

testimony wrapped up today in the trial. roger stone, the president's

long time associate and political advisor. stone is charged with lying to congress about his conversations with wikileaks as well as witness tampering and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. you'll recall, of course, that wikileaks is the organization that published the democratic campaign e-mails that were stolen by the russians during the 2016 presidential election and were then exploited by the trump campaign. according to an indictment from special council robert mueller stone effectively acted as a liaison. he informed senior trump exam pai pai ination and in his written responses to mueller trump claimed he had no memory of ever talking to roger stone about wikileaks. quote, i spoke to roger stone from time to time during the campaign. i do not recall discussing wikileaks with him. today brought some amazing testimony from trump's own

deputy campaign manager rick gates who told a very different story than the one trump told in his written testimony. joining me now is dan freedman who was covering stone's trial and was in the courtroom today. his news piece was headlined stone trial reveals trump likely lied to mueller. it was sort of the big jaw drop moment. what happened? he was of course a senior advisor to the trump campaign, a senior aide. he said on july 31st he was in a car with trump and heard trump on the phone and when trump got off that phone call he had wikileaks which had just released a bunch of national e-mails trump told him there'd be more information. of course that means trump was talking to stone about wikileaks and what e-mails wikileaks would be releasing.

we don't know for sure that what trump remembered or didn't recall when he answered those written questions to mueller. >> right. >> but we can use our faculties and it really looks like he lied in that written answer to mueller, which is pretty astonishing. >> yeah, there's a reason that people who have lawyers and are careful say i do not recall a lot when they're on sworn deposition. and trump actually we know is familiar with depositions and he says i do not recall a lot. but clearly this moment was striking enough to gates himself he both recalls it and tells investigators and now the jury. >> yeah. it was sort of a dramatic reveal in gates' testimony and wasn't the only one. gates also said just before that pal manafort, the chairman of the came pain asked gates to keep in touch with stone and manafort told gates he was briefing trump on what he was learning about wikileaks. so there's a bunch of evidence that shows that trump dw spite

what he says knew a lot about what wikileaks was doing, and that their entire campaign was paying close attention to what stone was saying. >> here's the mystery at the heart of this for me. it does seem that stone's in some trouble in terms of the case he did actually lie in congressional testimony, that he tried to obstruct this investigation. but what doesn't seem clear is the mystery of did stone have some actual secret knowledge? did he have some back door? was he just a b.s. artist so addicted to b.s 'ing he's now going to go to jail for it? >> the mueller report had all this redacted stuff about stone, but this is narrow case. it's about stone as you mentioned lying to congress primarily. so they're not revealing a lot of information. we know that stone is telling the campaign he had information about what wikileaks knew, and

he came out today also according to gates he was saying wikileaks was releasing e-mails damaging to hillary clinton as soon as april. >> that is big question mark that hangs over this whole trial. thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> coming up, there's padding your résume and then there's padding your résume. the amazing story of the trump official who was definitely not on the cover of "time "magazine. that's next. of "time "magazine. that's next. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients.

patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.

♪ 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 ♪ liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

allow me to introduce you to mina chang, a deputy assistant secretary in the state department where he earns a six figure salary for her work helping to prevent conflicts in politically unstable countries. it's a senior post, one that usually requires a top secret security clearance. chang was originally being considered for an even more senior job, overseeing the u.s. agency for international developments work in asia with a budget of over $1 billion. back in september her nomination was abruptly withdrawn without explanation and now i think we know why. an nbc news investigation reveals chang embellished her résume and made misleading claims about her professional background. this is her official bio on the state department website. it says chang has addressed the

republican and democratic national conventions. but video shows she actually spoke at separate events held in the cities in philadelphia a cleveland during the same time as the conventions. and chang claimed her group testified before congress. no record of that ever happening either. then there's her education. according to her bio, she's an alumni. but she didn't have a degree. she's also listed as a graduate of the army corp knowledge security seminar, an event that lasted all of four days. as far as an undergraduate degree -- her major work history is at a non-profit called linking the world. she touted the organization as working in dozens of countries and impacting thousands of people. but a review of their tax filing

found no concrete information about overseas project. perhaps her most egregious moment came in 2017 when she showed up to an interview with a fake time zag swremagazine featr face. can you blame her? her boss is donald trump, and she's just as qualified for her job as he is for the presidency. job as he is for the presidency. 24-7, it's not just easy. it's having-jerome-bettis- on-your-flag-football-team easy. go get 'em, bus! ohhhh! [laughing] c'mon bus, c'mon! hey, wait, wait, wait! hey man, i got your flag! i got your flag, man! i got your flag! it's geico easy. with licensed agents available 24/7. 49 - nothing! woo! you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price,

the way it works best for you, i'll 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 on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! tothe problem is corporationsfix anything. and the people who run and own them have purchased our democracy. here's the difference between me and the other candidates. i don't think we can fix our democracy from the inside. i don't believe washington politicians and big corporations will let that happen. the only way we can make change happen is from the outside. for me, this comes down to whether you trust the politicians or the people. and if you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations, and give the people the tools they need

to fix our democracy. a national referendum. term limits. eliminating corporate money in politics. making it easy to vote. i trust the people. and as president, i will give you tools we need to fix our democracy. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

rodney reed is scheduled to be executed by the state of texas next wednesday, but a growing chorus of people across the ideological and cultural peck trm are calling on governor greg abbot to astep in and save the life of a man many believe are innocent. a group of texas law enforcement officers filed a brief asking the u.s. supreme court to intervene. state lawmakers, very polarized state of texas, both democrat and republican, have written to the governor about the case. even republican senator ted cruz is calling for the state to stop and take a harder look at the evidence. we've been covering the rodney reed case for years. ever since his last scheduled execution back in early 2015. even back then there were serious issues surrounding his conviction. in 1998 rodney reed was convicted of the murder and rape of 19-year-old stacey stites, a

crime he says he did not commit. i traveled to livingston, texas, by then he had spent nearly half his life behind bars. >> i had nothing to do with this case. i had nothing to do with this case, nothing at all. absolutely nothing at all. >> stacey was found dead on the side of a country road in the small town of texas in april 1996. a medical examiner ruled she'd died as a result of aasphyxia due to ligature strangulation associated with sexual assault. and a dna sample was obtained from semen found inside the body. investigators initially suspected her fiance. finel was the last person to see her alive at the night of her death and his truck was found down the road from her body.

finel said she was driving to work to a super market as she normally did. finel was eventually cleared when the dna was not a match, and investigators concluded he couldn't have killed her based on the time line he provided. a year later police looked into a man with multiple accusations of sexual assault, rodney reed. the dna was a match. they brought him in for questioning. >> have you ever seen her before? >> no, i haven't. >> never dated her? >> no, i haven't. >> after first denying knowing the victim reed later said he and stites were engagedane a secret sexual relationship which would explain the presence of his dna. his lawyer said they found witnesses who knew about his relationship with stacey stites but could not bring anyone forward in trial. i asked reed why he initially told investigators why he didn't

know stites. >> i didn't want to incriminate myself. i didn't want to be questioned about it. i was a black man in a small town and it wasn't me pulling the race card or anything like that. but it's the nature of the small city i lived in. you know what i'm saying? >> it took just hours for an all white jury to convict rodney reed and sentence him to death. >> when you found out you were getting the death sentence, did it feel real to you, did it feel distant? >> it was a numb feeling. it was like, you know -- really it was unbelievable. it felt like i was in a dream. it felt like this wasn't real, it wasn't real. >> ten years after reed was convicted, another trial brought his case back into the headlines. jimmy finell, stacey stites

faien fiance when she died pled guilty to -- you hear about his plea years later. what went through your mind then? >> we had no idea what jimmy finell was capable of back in '98. and i wonder what a jury would have done if they had known about that at the time. it makes you think a lot harder about whether jimmy finell could have done it. tonight just over a week before rodney reed is once again scheduled to be executed by the state of texas, there's even more significant new evidence that casts further doubt on his conviction. the latest reporting on that next. don't go anywhere. reporting ont next don't go anywhere. ading in a ne. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today

and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. 25 cent boneless wings at applebee's. ♪ born to be wild... born to be wild...♪ get 'em while they're hot. and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road,

and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby!

texas plans to execute rodney reed for a crime he says he did

not commit. tonight the innocence project which has helped exonerate more than 200 wrongfully convicted people through dna testing says they have compelling new evidence that casts down on reed's conviction. and they're battling it out in the courts while rodney reed's family fights to keep him alive. >> i believe we have a very good chance of getting justice not just for rodney but for stacey stites as well. because i know she is not resting well in the grave knowing that an innocent man is going to be charged and murdered for a crime he didn't commit. >> reporter: when rodney reed was convicted 21 years ago of the rape and murder of stacey stites, the prosecution's entire case rested on two main pillars. first a time line provided by her fiance, jimmy finnell. second the traces of rodry reed's semen found in her body.

reed was sentenced to death. he's now scheduled for execution november 20th. but reed's family and his legal team say he's innocent and that they have the compelling evidence and witnesses to prove it. every aspect of this case has been disproven and new evidence continues to come out. >> reporter: the innocent project took up rodney reed's case in 2012 and successfully won a stay of execution three years later. among the evidence they presented new witnesses who said rodney reed and stacey stites were in a secret albeit consensual relationship. and now a new witness further muddies finnell's time line. police officer curtis was with finnell after stacey stites went missing. >> what jimmy told curtish was very different to what he testified to at it trial or told the police. he claimed he'd been out late

that night drinking and didn't get home until late and stacey must have left without him because he'd been drinking. whereas when he was at trial he testified that he had been at home with stacey the whole night. >> reporter: another new witness, a sheriff's deputy signed an affidavit saying he heard finnell at his fiancee's funeral standing over her body saying you got what you deserved. then there was the fact finnell later served a ten year sentence after a woman gave testimony saying he forced her to have sex at gunpoint while he was on duty as a police officer. and one of finnell's fellow inmates has now come forward saying he admitted killing stacey stites. >> new witnesses are coming forward with information that shows jimmy finnell may be the culprit here and that rodney reed did not commit this crime. >> reporter: reed's legal team has filed an appeal in the u.s. supreme court and made a direct

plea to it texas governor for clemency. a legion of supporters including police officers, state lawmakers, death penalty abolitionists and celebrities are also calling for rodney reed's exoneration. so far the governor has found no indication he'll grant clemency, but reed's family says he'll fight to the end. >> our family is now whole. >> what was so polarizing in this case? >> the racism was a huge polarizing factor. you have a black male accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a woman who's white and also the fiance of a member of law enforcement. he was convicted right out the gate like in the court of public opinion. you know, like, he must have done it. >> what role does race continue to play in this case? you have texas juks s is one thing but texas justice for a

black man in a small town, that's a whole different animal altogether. >> rodney's guilt is medically and scientifically impossible. we have credible witnesses about the relationship. we have mounting evidence pointing towards jimmy finnell. what's left to believe that rodney reed is actually guilty? to go forward with this execution, absent real evidence of guilt, you've got to wonder why would they do that? >> jimmy finnell's lawyer maintains his client is innocent and that it was rodney reed that killed stacey stites. "in" reached out to the texas guv-nurse's office and the district attorney and received no response. the texas attorney general office told nbc news after reviews by more than 20 judges it's time, quote, to see that justice is done at last. i want to bring in tremain lee for the latest. i understand lee's lawyers have appeals and motions filed pending seven legal tracts.

>> they have appeals instate, federal and supreme court. including one in state court that seeks to invalidate the judge that signed the order because the judge was temporary. if that order was granted he would get a new trial. there's a lot of pressure being put on governor greg abbot, but the only thing greg abbot can do unilaterally is give a 30-day reprieve. the state also requires a 90-day notice. now the body that actually has all the power is the board of pardons and paroles. they can make a decision and say hey we recommend you commute his death sentence to a life sentence. at that point governor abbot can either accept or reject it. that's the only thing he can do. >> the thing that first drew us in was the conviction of jimmy finnell ten years after this guy is convicted by an all white jury in this town it turns out the fiance had sexually assaulted a woman in his

custody. the new evidence here about police officers coming forward, these are sworn affidavits -- >> there are multiple officers who come forward and give some variation of his implication of guilt including one guy who was at the viewing, standing in the doorway and he recalls seeing stacey stites body dressed in all white like a wedding dress and he hears him say you got what you deserved. he's a man of the law, aermented police officer who says he remembered hearing him say that. >> it's a very polarized state. it does seem like there's happening here a little bit. >> think about greg abbot was the law and order attorney general in this state and the state of texas executes more people than any other state in the country. and to have a bipartisan effort by all the ted cruzs of the world and all the pressure put on entertainers and other people, this is different.

and still this is texas and texas justice is what it is. >> i know the stites family is divided in terms of how they feel about reed's guilt or innocence. >> there's a cousin of stacey stites around the time she was killed remembers hearing they were involved in this secret relationship. she believes rodney is innocent. but the mother and other siblings believe rodney reed is a killer and it's time for him to be executed. >> it's a remarkable case. the execution is set eight days from now. >> that's right, november 20th. at any moment, any day before then we could have any of those things trigger some sort of reprieve. there's no indication now greg abbott has any indication of offering that rebuke. >> the reason i'm here in chicago tonight is we're doing another live taping of our po podcast tonight.

nicole ana jones who conceived the 1619 project about the legacy of slavery from "the new york times" magazine. we're going to be talking about race and slavery all in the trump era all velerant to the conversation we just had. tickets are sold out tonight but i'll be talking to the legendary playwright tony kushner about politics and that's at the town hall in new york city december 8th. tickets are available on our website right now. there's also a brand new episode of with pod about her new book tracing 50 years of brave women, crucial court battles and a fascinating conversation. check it out where you get your podcasts. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. much appreciated. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour as well. here at msnbc we work closely

with, we work physically alongside our nbc news colleagues. but that does not always mean we have any inside information on what exactly they're doing on the network side and vice versa. whatever we're working on, they might not have total transparency. as such when nbc news broadcasts it special report tomorrow morning on the impeachment proceedings against president trump, the first public impeachment hearings in the impeachment proceedings against president donald j. trump and when that nbc news special report tomorrow morning anchored by lester holt from nightly news and nbc news correspondent