tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 22, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PST
adquarters in new york tonight on "all in". >> this president tonight the extraordinary testimony and the most damming for the president. >> everyone was in the loop. >> when trump's own guy threw him under the bus. >> we follow the president's orders. >> i know precisely what american policy was with respect to ukraine. i was working on it. >> plus a big night in georgia for 2020 democrats. and the birth of a meme on the white house lawn. >> this is the final word from the president of the united states.
>> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. today was the end of a packed week of testimony in the impeachment of president donald j. trump. it is likely the final day of televised hearings in this round of the inquiry. today we heard from the tenth and 11th witnesses. one is career diplomat, a guy named david holmes, who's currently the counselor for political affairs at the u.s. embassy in ukraine and who by his own reckoning did not imagine he'd be testifying here. except he directly heard the president asking the director to the european union gordon sondland about the hit job he'd want on his political rival. this is when donald trump called from a middle of a restaurant in kiev. >> what did ambassador sondland say to you? >> he said he doesn't really care about ukraine. >> did he use slightly more colorful language than that? >> he did. >> what did he say he does care about? >> he said he cares about big
stuff. >> did he explain what he meant by big stuff? >> i asked him what kind of big stuff? we have big stuff going on here like a war with russia, and he said no big stuff like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani's pushing. >> the biden investigation, that's what he cares about. surprising. the other witness was a reknowned russia expert named fiona hill. she's a trump white house official until the middle of july. her testimony was as reporter alex thomas put it, quote, at the risk of committing puntry, fiona hill is the most competent witness that i've seen before this committee. she might be the most competent witness i've ever seen before congress at any point. i have seen dozens of professors testify in sublt subjects they
are experts. my colleague nicolle wallace wrote, quote, i spent much of my career in politics. i've never seen anyone much like fiona hill. conspiracy theories spewing from the republican members. >> some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. the unfortunate truth is that russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. this is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. it is beyond dispute. even if some of the underlying details must remain classified. the impacts of the successful 2016 russian campaign remains evident today. our nation is being torn apart. truth is questioned. our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.
right now russia's security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. we're running rut of time to stop them. and the cost of this investigation i would ask you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that promote russian interests. >> shy also delivered damning testimony about the national security advisor john bolton to demands for ukraine to open those investigations. >> what was that specific instruction? >> the specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers to john eisenberg. i was senior council for the national security council to basically say ambassador bolton told me that i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand it to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up am. >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> republicans on the
intelligence committee tried to tango with fiona hill early on, but at a certain point they got tired of getting owned over and over and just flat out gave up asking her questions, trying unsuccessfully to just limit her chance of talking at all. >> thank you for your service, thanks for being here and i yield back. >> could i actually say something because we've had three. >> i was going to skl you if you'd like to respond. gentleman, will suspend. dr. hill, you may respond. >> i think what he said was important about the importance of overcoming and certainly partisan, you know, division. and it's unfortunate that congressman turner and radcliffe have both left as well because i think all of us who came here under a legal obligation also feltd we had a moral obligation to do so. >> fiona hill's ultimate moment
of the day came while being questioned by the republican counsel she started by explaining why she got so upset with one of the people running point on the president's extortion scheme, ambassador gordon sondland. >> i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all of the meetings he was having. and he said to me that i'm briefing the president. i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney. i'm briefing secretary pompeo, and i've talked to ambassador bolton. who else do i have to deal with? it struck me yesterday when you put up on it screen ambassador sondland's e-mails and who was on these e-mails, and you said these are the people that need to know he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. and we were being involved in national security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged. >> a domestic political errand.
it's absolutely right, though, of course it cheekily undersells the gravity of that errand. but gordon sondland had been tasked to do by rudy giuliani was to pull off a political hit job. it did not have anything to do with the national security of the united states. it had nothing to do with the foreign policy of the united states or national interest or interest incru or any of that. we know that. sondland was just a bag man for the trump campaign. but using the official powers of the presidency to carry it off. fiona hill's explanation distills all the drama we've seen. the regular channel and the irregular channel, the fact all these experts who come to testify are working on ukraine policy, and they're all scratching their head thinking what is going on, what is the roadblock, what's the hold up, why is this happening? the mystery surrounding it all, the drug deal happening around the corner. because national security policy is not what donald trump was doing, certainly what gordon sondland was doing, not what rudy giuliani was doing.
no, they were not doing foreign policy a lot of them. they were not protecting national security. they were not looking out for the national interest. they were not representing the people who elected the president to be president. all of us, that is, american citizens. what they were doing is carrying off a political hit job, an errand. they were trump's version of nixon's plumbers. this was their version of the watergate break in. joining me now is congressman denny heck of washington. how would you sum up what you learned in this week of testimony? there was a lot of it. >> first of all, i think in some regards americans can sleep better tonight because they were treated to witness after witness after witness from the diplomatic corp and from federal service that put their love of country before all else, people of integrity and character and
courage dare i say given all that went on. and secondly, chris, he did it. that's it. he did it. the fact of the matter is the evidence overwhelming, and if this were a criminal justice proceeding and it's that kind of roughly analogous to that the jury would have brought a unanimous verdict and he did it and the question is what is congress going to do about it now. >> to that point the summation i thought by the chair today, mr. schiff, was really quite remarkable. i want to just play a little sound because what he says in the end has a kind of direness to the warning and i want to get your reaction to it. take a listen. >> i will tell you why i could resist no more, and it came down to this. it came down to -- actually it came down to timing. it came down to the fact that
the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference -- the day after that donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. and in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> congressman, how -- how dire do you think the stakes are in terms of the message that is
sent both to this president and future presidents if it is essentially deemed fine to do what the president did? >> if he normalizes this, chris, absolutely. we have an opportunity here to hold the president accountable. and if we do not, pretty clearly he would have established the base that any future president can get away with, the kinds of things that he did. and that there will be no way to hold them accountable. i've always thought this about the rule of law and whether or not the president was above it. he's not. >> one of your colleagues today, republican will hurd, he's a retiring member of congress, he was seen as i think sensible by democrats, a moderate. he's retiring. he has expressed his reservations about the president's conduct. he closed today by saying there's not evidence here to impeach. were you surprised by that? what's your reaction? >> so i think will hurd is an honorable person, and i think he's been an honorable member of congress.
and in fact, chris, i cannot exaggerate to you how much i would like to have the debate he set forth. namely what happened here is wrongdoing, it simply didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. now, i happen to disagree with will on that score. but the fact is that would be a healthy debate. that's not the argument that all of his colleagues are making. they're all saying nothing wrong went on here, nothing whatsoever, i don't even know why we're doing this when in fact the evidence is again overwhelming. the debate will would like to have would be a good debate for america. what we're having is not one. >> were you -- fiona hill today was a fairly striking witness in many ways. she kept warning about the insidiousness of a variety of sort of false narratives about, you know, ukraine meddling in the elections and the conspiracy theory of course that made it all the way to the president's
lips in the phone call with zelensky which essentially comes down to the dnc teaming with ukraine to hack its own servers and leak its own e-mails in order to frame russia for it. what do you make of her saying that and your republican colleagues continue to truck in precisely what she had identified? >> they'd been oblivious to the facts seemingly from the very beginning, but she's absolutely right in pinpointing what the multiple levels of danger really are here. first of all, if this argument is allowed to be propagated it weakens ukraine because it calls into question our support for a country that would do this to us. russia delights in that because what makes ukraine weaker makes russia stronger. they would like nothing better than to be able to march into ukraine and make it a client state. and of course we've compromised the ukraine's national security by making this argument, and we compromise our own national security by making this argument.
and oh, by the way in the process we've undermined the very predicate of democracy which is rule of law. >> congressman denny heck who was in those hearings all week thanks so much. and joining me now two people who have been following these hearings closely. you've done some reporting on fiona hill. a lot of people were -- were surprised when she left the brookings institution to join the trump administration. he talked about it today, and i thought really interesting terms. basically she went back in because she actually thinks -- she thinks a u.s.-russia bilateral relationship is important. we can't be at constant odds. and she wanted to do what she could do set it straight. julia?
>> oh, i'm sorry, i thought you were playing a clip. i think there's also a sense that the russians had meddled in our elections and she felt like she could bring her expertise to bear and you know set it right. and i don't know if you recall early on in the trump administration when there was really a dearth of people who were willing to go in, the people who did go in kind of felt like they were going to be the adults in the room, the kind of sober hand on the wheel with this erratic driver who was leader of the free world. they thought they could mitigate the damage and keep things from getting worse. and kurt volker was one of those people. jim mattis was one of those people. fiona hill was one of those people. and now those people are witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. >> max, precisely the kind of narrative she talked about has been the through line for not just devin nunes and other
people on the committee but obviously rudy giuliani who's tweeting right now about how the u.s. embassy won't grant visas to some former prosecutors who want to come and tell us how corrupt i guess the bidens are. it does seem this sort of counter narrative that has been constructed has essentially colonized the minds of one of the two major parties. >> yeah, look, chris, i think we have to put this in some context. i mean, part of what rudy was doing as trump's personal lawyer who was hired as part of the russia investigation was to try to develop a counter narrative, a response trump could use to defend himself from allegations he colluded with russia that they thought were coming because of the mueller investigation. and then they saw this opportunity to connect it to biden in the 2020 election. and this has always been about trump's ability or willingness to use u.s. foreign policy to advance his own personal political interests. and so it has never stopped. and it's been clear throughout
2019. and so the idea that the grown ups as julia mentioned, that kurt volker and ambassador sondland didn't know that this was connected, that burisma meant biden is utterly farcical. it was in the "new york times" may 1. rudy was pushing biden. they knew what this was all about and fiona hill testified to that today. >> julia, do you think this will continue to be sort of a propped up theory? i mean, hill did her best today to kind of slay it. but you're already watching and lindsey graham sent a letter to mike pompeo and we want all your communications with biden and the hunter biden and the former ukrainian president and et cetera, et cetera. >> you're seeing this in the kind of right wing media and this parallels that two parts of the population live in parallel
informational universes, only one of which is true, and we have that happening here when this scandal started brewing and continuing through the hearings. people on the right were saying oh, they never got over the russia hoax. they kept talking about the steele dossier. like those conspiracy theories never went away. you had devin nunes basically and his counsel going through hi, witness, have you heard of conspiracy theory 72b, and those were all from the mueller era. it's been baked in and cemented i would say. and i looked at fox right as fiona hill wrapped up her testimony. at their website it's like they watched a different hearing. they were talking about how she was against the sale of javelins at the beginning, it was about hunter biden. it's like they didn't watch the hearing at all. >> one of the through lines has been ugly attacks on the witnesses about dual loyalties,
and you've written about lieutenant colonel alexander vinldman. today i saw conservatives questioning why so many people in american intelligence and foreign service are foreign-born. there's something pretty dark there that i think has been unearthed over the course of the last few weeks. >> oh, incredibly dark. and i think what it reflects is they have no alternative arguments besides the conspiracy theory that we just sort of outlined trying to blame ukraine for russian interference, which is a russian intelligence talking point. so they have no argument. and so the other thing you can do is try to attack the witnesses and try to demean the witnesses and try to say they have these dual loyalties. a lot of it has anti-semitic undertones. a lot of it is to gin up the right wing base.
it's demeaning to the people who served the country and taken an oath. and people who have served this country honorably and especially with lieutenant colonel vindman who's fought, been shot at, been wounded in battle. and to attack that guy's patriotism is simply beyond the pail. but what we're seeing is there's no bottom to this republican party. and, you know, the democrats are about to move forward on impeachment, and really i think what we're seeing is it's the republican party on trial here to see where they stand. >> thank you both. >> next, a fresh look at the testimony of ambassador gordon sondland, the man who said everyone was quote in the loop on the ukraine scheme. may have just gotten himself in more trouble. that's coming up in two minutes. it's time for the ultimate sleep number event
committee and he did in the end make his plane back to brussels. even more importantly sondland implicated seemingly just about everyone involved in the scheme and his testimony produced headlines like this. we followed the president's orders and yes there was a quid pro quo. but sondland also was squirrely. he attempted to slice his answers thin. the republican counsel asked sondland if he actually believed the president's entirely noncredible denial of a quid pro quo during a phone call between the two men. >> so rather than ask the president nine different questions, is it this, is it this, is it that i just said what do you want from ukraine? i may have even used a four-letter word, and he said i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i just want zelensky to do the right thing or words to that effect. >> and you believe the president, correct? >> you know what, i'm not going to characterize whether i
believe or didn't believe. i was just trying to convey what he said on the phone. >> joining me now former prosecutor glenn kirschner. what did you think of sondland as a witness? >> you know, he wasn't the most compelling witness i've ever seen. dr. fiona hill probably was the most compelling witness i've ever seen in my 30 years as a prosecutor. you know, sondland i think brought some important facts to the table. he brought some of that first-hand information out of trump's mouths, not just hearsay which was an incessant complaint of republicans. sondland if we had an attorney general interested in enforcing the laws of the country, i actually think sondland implicated himself in a conspiracy to commit bribery, extortion, in a conspiracy to defraud the united states by reaching out to a foreign country to undermine our u.s. elections. flow, i don't pretend that anyone's going to necessarily want to bring charges against
him, but the fact he incriminated himself makes him a little bit extra credible. he didn't completely try to keep himself out of the conspiratorial loop. instead he included everybody in it, trump and pompeo and mulvaney. so, you know, i think he was at the end of the day a mixed bag. >> well, the thing that he said about everyone was in the loop, i was letting everyone know, you know, i take that and i take fiona hill's testimony and it all sort of works as a unified theory. they were running the foreign policy and sondland was running the bag man operation to dirty up the president's political rival and using this opportunity and i wonder what you think about the necessity of hearing from people like mulvaney and pompeo. democrats appear to be moving forward without trying to fight that in the courts. what do you think? >> in a perfect world we'd love to hear from the boltons and
pompeos. and dr. hill showed us all it's appropriate to testify and still invoke executive privilege, which is exactly what the pompeos and mull vain pes should be doing instead of hiding in their offices behind this bogus claim of absolute immunity. there's no such thing that's ever been recognized in the law. i thought it was interesting because sondland said no, no, there was only one channel. it was the president's channel to do the quid pro quo. dr. fiona hill said, no, there were two channels. there was the legitimate foreign policy channel in which i operated and bill taylor operated, and then there was the illegitimate. i think she called it the political errand channel, albeit one president trump was telling people to pursue. what i like is that it looks
like sondland has kind of gone from a coffee boy to an errand boy because he was the one sort of taking the lead and point on this improper, you know, political errand channel. >> he also, one thing that made him strange as a witness is that he's reciting all this, he's implicating everyone and doesn't seem to have awareness this was not right. he's trying to maintain this distance that volker did, in which we never realized burisma was about biden, which today the witnesses said was completely not credible. do you find that credible at all? >> no, and i think dr. hill pretty much laid that to rest. but, you know, i think sondland was signaling that he knew things weren't right because if he was fully forthcoming, he would have said of course burisma equalled the bidens.
but he wasn't willing to go that far, so that tells me he was willing to sort of give up some of his own complicity but not all of his own complicity. >> he sort of kept one foot in, one foot out the entire day. it was really fascinating and odd to watch. ahead the much bigger fish as the state department with holds key documents we're learning just how close secretary of state mike pompeo was to the center of it all. more on that next. with so many changes, do you know if your plan is still the right fit? having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket, and that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit or if there's another one that
can get you extra coverage or help save you money. best of all, their service is completely free. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? well, if not, maybe it's not the right fit. how about hearing aid, glasses and gym memberships at no additional cost? maybe there is a better fit for you. call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. we can instantly compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more, including plans that may let you keep your doctor and save money. with the annual medicare enrollment deadline coming, don't waste another minute not knowing if you have the right medicare fit. for this free service go to healthmarkets.com or call right now. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a+ customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit.
the healthmarkets fitscore makes it easy to find the right medicare plan for you. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company, they work to help you and they do it all for free. your insurance marketplace. healthmarkets. there may be medicare benefits and savings you're missing out on. only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. call before the deadline. the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing.
theme throughout the entire week pompeo was looped into and made a part of the extortion scheme at every turn. not to mention he was actually on the call in which the president pressured the ukrainian president to pull off the political hit job on his opponent. and yet secretary pompeo has refused to release relevant records and documents to the state department and has been dodging questions about his own conduct in the matter. all the while eyeing the exits in hopes of a senate run. first, john, let me just ask you from your reporting how has all this been playing inside the state department? >> well, there's a few different angles going on. for the rank and file state department officials many of whom knew the former and ousted u.s. ambassador to ukraine, there's a lot of disappointment because they feel like this is one of the most decorated and well respected diplomats among them who was unceremoniously ousted.
on the other hand, you know, they have appreciated the fact that mike pompeo as you said is a big fish. he is the most treasured and prized member of trump's cabinet and so that gives the state department more relevance than it used to have say under rex tillerson. but when they see their own members and their own sort of well respected diplomats treated in this way, it really is discouraging, and that's been felt widely across the department. >> i know that he has answered questions about this matter at a variety of press avails but they were nonresponsive answers largely. it does seem to me there's a lot for him to answer for particularly in the wake of gordon sondland's release of those texts and the fact his state department is withholding relevant notes, texts and e-mails. >> oh, that's absolutely right. i mean, they had put up a damn in front of this committee that we're not responding to records
requests, being very dismissive of reporters who asked about it, telling them they're not doing their job. and gordon sondland essentially burst through that damn and put forward e-mails that he sent directly to the secretary of state, e-mails that he sent to the secretary's executive assistant and really detailing how he put together this quid pro quo and exchanging a white house visit for support for investigations. and making very clear that he kept the secretary abreast, and so that really transformed our understanding of just how closely secretary pompeo was following everything. >> sondland also, i want to play this testimony yesterday, he's frustrated by the fact he couldn't get his own notes from the state department which is withholding them. take a listen. >> i have not had access to all of my phone records, state department e-mails and many, many other state department documents. and i was told i could not work
with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. having access to the state department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom i spoke and met and when and what was said. >> do we know what pompeo's next move is? there's a lot of talk about kansas. he's been flying there a lot. there's some rorring indicating folks think he has his eyes on a senate run. what does your reporting indicate? >> our reporting indicates the republican leadership in the senate is very interested in having him run for senate, and they don't want to lose the senate. and so the -- you know, it's obvious that secretary pompeo through his work as the top diplomat, through his work as the nation's top spy at the cia would be a very compelling candidate in kansas where they're worried they could lose to a democrat, which would be extremely unexpected. i so in the party leadership they want him to do this.
meanwhile he is taking hits day in and day out for any involvement in the impeachment, and so there's a lot of questions about whether he is going to just cut and run and run for the senate. his people say that that's absolutely out of the question, the only thing he has on the mind is america's diplomacy. >> thank you for your time tonight. appreciate it. coming up, did we mention there was a democratic debate last night, too? we're going to talk about that amazing event coming up. but next a thing 1, thing 2 remix. don't go anywhere.
a special thing 1 thing 2 tonight without the commercial in the middle. as we've learned that donald trump i want nothing conversation with gorlden sondland may not have been exactly what the two have said it was, but that's the story and man alive is trump sticking to it. yesterday the president marched out and photographers captured his notes which he apparently wants you to believe counts as an official transcript of the call. >> i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky, president zelensky to do the right thing. this is the final word from the president of the united states. >> well, i hate to tell you, buddy, this is not going to be the final word because thing 2, the internet had a field day
with that. one guy changed the image of his notes to the baby back ribs song from the chili's commercial and some went with the showman theme. and some really took it up a notch. ♪ i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo ♪ ♪ tell zelensky to do the right thing ♪ ♪ i want nothing, tell president zelensky to do the right thing i want nothing ♪ >> that was damn good but the ramones version from alex clemente might be even better. ♪ ♪
>> so good. someday maybe one of those will be on the sound track of the movie version of all this and i sincerely hope that actress louie sullivan will be posted for a role. she posted this as an audition monologue. >> i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. this is the final word, from the president. health markets compares your current plan with
thousands of options nationwide from national insurance companies. don't miss the deadline. there are only days remaining in open enrollment. funny thing about health insurance, you don't think about how much you need it until you need it. he's not going to be okay. with so many changes to health insurance plans, are you still sure you have the right fit? having the wrong fit can cost you thousands. new plans are available that can save you money. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they guarantee you won't find a lower price anywhere for the plans they offer. their new fitscore instantly compares thousands of plans, both on the government exchange and off, to find the one that best fits your insurance need. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit or if there's another one that can get you extra coverage or help save you money.
best of all, their service is completely free. their new fitscore makes it easy to compare your plan to new ones that could lower your costs and save you money. try the new fitscore today. you may even qualify for free health insurance with no monthly premium. don't get stuck using the government exchange either. healthmarkets can find you the right health plan and make sure you get all the subsidies you deserve without all the hassle. they even have new alternative options most don't even know about that can save you thousands. they work to help you and do it all for free. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit. the healthmarkets' fitscore makes it easy to find the right plan for you. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a+ customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. for this free service, go to healthmarkets.com or call right now. your insurance market place, healthmarkets. call healthmarkets before the december 15th enrollment deadline to see if you qualify for $0 premiums.
call the number on your screen now. (danny) after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. (danny) every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. quickbooks. backing you. it's time sleep numbermate sleep360 smart bed.on the you can adjust your comfort on both sides - your sleep number setting. can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep us asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so you can really promise better sleep. not promise. prove. and now during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. ends saturday robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for?
download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. so here's an issue front and center this week. does the president of the united states pursue american foreign policy in the nation's interest or in his own political or monetary interest? interesting thing to ponder in a lot of domains. secretary of state pompeo announced the united states is break wg four decades of bipartisan precedent in declaring that it no longer views israeli settlements in the west bank as a violation of international law. those settlements are in fact recognized by the u.n. and international law as illegal because they are constructed on land taken in war. the u.s. no longer sees it that way. this reversal on american policy is consistent with one donald trump has followed since the day he took office which is to make policy choices favorable for the israeli right wing. and benjamin netanyahu has repaid the president with a
tremendous amount of praise and support. the two men have a lot in common. today that commonality has a fine point on it. because as donald trump faces impeachment netanyahu was indicted today for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in three different corruption cases. i should note it's the first time in israeli history that a prime minister has been indicted in office and pushing for benefits to the owner of a news website in exchange prosecutors say quid pro quo you might call it for favorable news coverage and even choice of stories and language used. and netanyahu is reacting to it. often word for word as trump would and does. netanyahu has called it a witch hunt. he's called it an attempted coup. you would have to be blind to tee something bad is happening with the police and prosecution because tonight we are
witnessing an attempted coup through blood libels and a biased investigation process. the reality is the prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu was indicted today in three long running corruption cases. and republicans have tried to us that the reason president trump held up nearly $400 million worth of military aid to ukraine and because donald trump is so concerned about corruption in countries receiving foreign aid. so i'm sure we'll be hearing about all those concerns president trump has expressed as netanyahu's corruption indictment dropped today in a country the u.s. gives nearly $4 billion worth of aid to every year. somehow i do not think we are going to see that.
so what are you waiting for? get this great deal when you sign up for fast, reliable internet. call 1-800-501-6000 today. comcast business. beyond fast. we have a president who's not only a pathological liar he's likely the most corrupt president in the modern history of america. but we cannot simply be consumed
by donald trump because if we are you know what we're going to lose the election. >> senator bernie sanders seemed to set the phone last night for an evening full of extremely substantive changes once again showing a party that's really not obsessed with trump. a party that is having a variety of sharp spirited discussions about its governing vision. it's like the normal politics of the democratic party where people talk about a variety of important issues like health care and housing or practical stuff like paid family leave. and joining me to talk more about last night's debate is christina greer, an associated professor at political society and sam seater, host of majority report with sam seeter. >> i was so struck -- obviously impeachment is a huge deal, but it's also the case
that trump is not dominating the democratic party primary discussion in ways that i find, frankly, interesting. i think healthily but find interesting. and that happened again tonight even though it came after 11 hours of the hearings. >> i think it makes sense in the context of the democratic primary. and i think there's wide acceptance that at least, you know, the top four or five candidates in the primary can probably beat donald trump as long as they're able to motivate a segment of the democratic base. and i think there's frankly some actual questions about one or two of those people. i could tell you who i think -- you know, i've yet to meet a joe biden supporter who is excited about joe biden beyond the fact that like i know him or i think he can win. but you don't see a lot of people -- i mean he's had trouble fund-raising which is really bizarre when you think about it. i mean, we're far-out. you know polls take a snapshot. but the idea someone who's
winning by double digits and is having fund-raising problems, that to me is big red flag. >> although, again, he continues to be at 30% in the polls and he continues to lead. >> without a doubt. and that's the point, though, is that when can you point to someone who's been that far-out this early who can't fund raise? >> you said about this idea that like these people can win, so i think there's two things happening. partly it's some confidence. and partly it's also true and there's all this hectoring of democrats here the bubble and this and that. back in 2018 they understood that's baked in. the people that are coming to lick the envelope for you and make calls, that's done. the people that you need to get are people like what's happening with my health care. and i think you have seen that carry over generally to the message last night. even when they're arguing or fighting about policy, it is pretty brass tack stuff. >> yeah, but i also think there were lessons learned from 2016
because, you know, i don't think this is necessarily true that we only focused on, you know, trump is racist, trump is a white nationalist, he's bad and don't vote for him. there was a lot of policy. we just didn't get to talk about it because we were talking about e-mails. the point is that i think the lesson democrats took away from 2016 is you can't just be against trump because everyone on the democratic side especially they're already against trump. what are you going to do to make my life better post-trump? >> particularly for the marginal voter, right? for the voter you either need to motivate to come out to the polls or the voter you need to persuade. and like for them it's like there's no real impeachment -- i think the democrats are right there's not a big impeachment message to the swing voters of rural wisconsin. >> and we know and voters come out for pocketbook issues. so if we're talking substantively and concretely about jobs how are you going to create them and that is what the
democrats need and should focus on, and they're getting better because it's a given. trump is bad. don't vote for him. >> there's another health care section last night but i thought it was very good. i thought the advocates of single payer which is what bernie sanders and elizabeth warren did a better job here of staying out of the like how are you going to pay for it stuff and more about here's what we're trying to build. maybe you don't like that, but there's arguments on both sides. but if you're going to make the argument, like, they need to be able to try to move the conversation over their terms which i thought they did pretty well last night. >> and i think to a certain extent, too, we're three months out from the iowa caucus. frankly, i think the dnc has been very generous in terms of trying to be democratic. there shouldn't be five people out there who are not cracking even close to double digits. it's getting to the point where it's ridiculous. and i think there's a lot of people out there hoping there's
going to be some type of like, you know, great moderate hope that's going to show up and rescue the centrists in some way, but they have their candidates. >> buddy, he's there. buttigieg is like -- running as a moderate and he's currently at the top of the polls in iowa. >> that's what i'm saying. so it's time to let them all -- let the top four or five candidates actually have a deeper debate about the direction of the democratic party. >> well, i mean it's interesting that you say the dnc is being generous. i would say tom perez is asleep at the wheel. i don't think steyer should be able to purchase his way onto lt stage. i don't think that tulsi gabbard should be on the stage spouting out fox news points. there are some people that -- >> if she's polling at 20% she could. the point is not the viewpoint discrimination but if you are not cracking 3% or 5% -- >> why are you here? >> there's really no reason for amy klobuchar to be there
either, and there's no reason for -- you could argue that andrew yang i guess is presenting a whole set of ideas we don't hear. but, look, the bottom line is if you've got low single digits it is time for the dnc to sort of say you go, you can have another debate somewhere else, but in terms of this one we need to focus on people who the democratic party have decided they think can take on donald trump. >> i think maybe polling is not the best way to do this in the future, and maybe that's what we're learning from this. it can't be one of the only factors because national polling is not necessarily capturing the support from black people that christina and i know exists for cory booker or kamala harris that is not factoring in the polling. because i talked to plenty of boomer black people that if you called them and asked them who would you support and they would probably say biden. but if you asked the follow-up question, are you excited?
they go -- they waffle on that. so i think that tells me it's a placeholder. you're sort of parking your car there and waiting from a spark from other candidates. that may resonate. >> i think we're going to see this -- i will say that i think even -- vng harris and booker are over the threshold even if you shrunk down four or five candidates. i think they're still over the threshold enough even if there was a main consolidation, but i think it's inevitable that we are going to see that ratcheted down. because you do have to sort of focus on this. thanks for joining us. if you're in new york don't forget we're doing a live recording of our podcast december 8th. tickets available now. you can find all the details on our website. that is "all in" for this evening. the "the 11th hour" starts now. >> tonight doctor hill and the
hand grenade. two public servants experts in their field speak truth to congress. they both paint a devastating picture of a coordinated scheme as they shatter conspiracy theories that have been spread by some of the members of the committee. trial of the president might look like in the senate and how long it might last. vladimir putin sounds satisfied his talks points in working in our country. all of it has the 11th hour gets underway on a thursday night. >> good evening. here ine