tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC November 27, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PST
thank you for watching "velshi & ruhle." katy tur picks up our coverage right now. i'm sorry for going over a little time. >> it's fine. i'm back at 5. you're back at 9. >> just us. >> just us all day long. we'll see. we might be back for other times. we don't know yet. ali velshi, thank you so much. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in the east where
democrats have another piece of evidence to bolster their argument that the president only followed the law after he was caught trying to break it. it is day 65 of the impeachment inquiry, and here is what's happening. "the new york times" reports that mr. trump knew about the whistleblower complaint when he released security aid to ukraine. according to the "times" white house lawyers told the president about the complaint in late august that revised timeline is now at odds with the narrative the republicans have been pushing for weeks, that there was no quid pro quo because the money was released before anyone even realized that the money was on hold. and the latest transcript released by democrats mark sandy, the only omb official to testify told impeachment investigators that staffers were frustrated by the inexplicable hold on the ukraine aid, so much so that two people quit. he also told lawmakers that re-asked repeatedly why the aid was being with held and warned omb lawyers and leadership that doing so could be against the
law. with the president's defenses crumbling, you might wonder when he may look to unload it all on someone else, perhaps his personal attorney who has been at the center of it all? >> no. i didn't direct him, but he -- he is a warrior. rudy is a warrior. >> what was rudy giuliani doing in ukraine on your behalf? >> well, you have to ask that to rudy, but i don't know -- i know he was going to go to ukraine and i think he cancelled the trip. but you know, rudy has other clients other than me. i'm one person. >> you didn't direct him to go there on your behalf? >> no. no. but you have to understand, rudy is a great corruption fighter. >> so the problem with that is the president's attempt to publicly separate himself from rudy giuliani doesn't really make sense because in that july 25th phone call, you remember you read this, president trump tells president zelensky, quote, rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. if you could speak to him, that
would be great. go talk to rudy. joining me washington post political investigator reporter rosalynn helderman, msnbc contributor, kimberly atkins, former deputy assistant secretary of state joel ruben and former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the u.n. hagar. everybody welcome. rosalynn, you have new reporting about rudy giuliani and a potential contract between him and ukrainian officials. what can you tell us? >> yeah. we're reporting that starting in about february of this year mayor giuliani was in negotiations to potentially essentially get paid by these folks in ukraine who he was working with to try to get this dirt to help president trump. there were various versions of contracts that were actually drawn up. one would have had him contract directly the top prosecutor in ukraine and other variations he
would have worked for the ukrainian justice ministry. we're told that none of them were ever fully executed, and that he did not actually receive any payment in the end. but this is a really important development, this idea that while rudy giuliani was doing this work in ukraine for his client, the president of the united states and apparently doing it in his telling for free, he was also negotiating to get paid on the side by the same people for essentially the same work. >> so potentially leveraging his influence on both ends of this, rosalend? >> that's what it looks like. that's certainly what it looks like. >> the president, kimberly, excuse me -- throwing rudy under the bus might not be quite what he did, but he's certainly trying to distance himself from rudy, saying rudy was the one that was involved in this. i don't really know what he was doing there. how do you argue that, kimberly, when you have yourself released a transcript of the call where you say talk to rudy. rudy knows what's going on.
>> and on top of that, we've had two weeks of testimony from people who consistently put forth a narrative during these impeachment hearings that the over and over again the refrain was talk to rudy, that donald trump instructed them to talk to rudolph giuliani, that president trump told the president of ukraine to talk to giuliani. giuliani is in the center of this entire thing. and one thing that the president did say in that interview yesterday was, well, giuliani has other clients. this shows us -- this is precisely why people go through security clearances when they work for the white house or they're vetted by the senate when they are a member of the state department doing diplomacy on behalf of the united states. it's to see if they have any financial interests or anything else that can pose a national security risk. what this story shows is that rudy giuliani was a walking national security risk. >> let's talk more about what
rudy giuliani was doing. joel, he says he was working you should the direction of the president. he says that he was working for the state department, excuse me, the state department, not the president. he's very closely trying to align himself with secretary of state mike pompeo. how does this work? >> well, it doesn't work. and what rudy giuliani was doing is he was digging for gold in ukraine clearly and trying to leverage his contacts with the white house, potentially maybe the president knew that he could get funded by a foreign actor to do the president's legal bidding and have those bills covered by someone else. so, it doesn't work. what needs to happen, though, is he needs to testify. he needs to explain it. and we need to have mike pompeo testify as well as mick mulvaney because unless they come clean to the american people, all we have is this swirling set of conflicts of interest and dirty dealing that really has enveloped this presidency. >> what about this, and this is
a little off topic, but mike pompeo, when we're on the subject of him, questioned whether ukraine meddled, and he basically took on this conspiracy theory that the president is pushing, saying that they take very seriously anybody who might have disrupted our elections. he is the secretary of state. he's going around the world, representing the united states, when this is something that nobody else believes. the intelligence community didn't assess this. said that russia was the one that attacked in our elections. he's going around and pushing a story that, according to fiona hill, somebody that works in the administration, was russian propaganda. >> yeah, katy, he found his benghazi tinfoil hat once again and using it on the ukraine scandal, which is incredible. because when he ran the c.i.a., he said that russia meddled. they're all twisted in knots right now in making a back-dated justifications for illegal acts, just like they're doing on the budget, failure. the illegal use of our taxpayer
dollars to essentially extort ukraine. all of this is attempting to make up excuses after the fact, knowing that they've been caught. >> so the other story that's out today is that the president knew about the whistleblower report in late august. he knew about the whistleblower report before he released aid. he knew about the the whistleblower report before he told gordon sondland, spoke to him on the phone and told him to say there was no quid pro quo, and he wants nothing. he knew that this was percolating before that stuff happened. when we're talking about ukrainian security aid, they were not just running a potentially politically damaging deadline, they were running up against a legal deadline to release this aid. according to mark sandy, whose testimony was released by house democrats yesterday, the omb officials omb was warned at least by mark sandy repeatedly that this could be a violation of law if they don't release the aid and he still wasn't getting an answer back as to why they
were holding it up. >> right. it underscores that the administration didn't appreciate, i think, the gravity in what was at stake here. i certainly don't think they appreciated the national security risks associated with it. so president trump has for a while now used foreign policy aid as a lever, but as a policy, right, he's with held aid from central american countries, from pakistan, from lebanon now, from the palestinians and he ease used it in order to gain traction on other policy efforts. and presidents can do that. but the ukraine aid was congressionally mandated number one. number two, it was for a specific effort to counter the russians. it was also part of our commitment as a fellow nato member. and most importantly, you have a situation where it's tied to personal and political gain. the others are tied to policy issues, right? there's ostensibly an agreement to with hold aid to achieve a goal. there's a big difference and big risk with putting it with personal and political gain and
i don't think so they appreciate the gravity. >> two omb officials resigned over this. clearly the gravity was at least addressed at the moment. the president, kimberly, has said that he wants some of his officials to testify. he would be fine with that. hard to take him seriously on that because if you really wanted them to then he would have told them to go do it or release people from this idea that there's absolute immunity and then sarah sands er sanders resurfaced and was talking to fox. here is how she described it. >> i don't think the president cares if any of his people have to go up and testify because he knows that nothing happened that was any wrong doing on behalf of the administration. the president has been very up front and completely transparent throughout the process. they've put out the transcripts of the interactions that the president's had with the
leadership in ukraine. and i think this is kind of a done deal and it's time to move on. and adam schiff has shown once again that these fake investigations and these ridiculous shams he keeps trying to push on the american people are not going to work. >> is that going to happen? is the president going to let people testify because he believes he's done nothing wrong, kim ler by? >> no, no. we saw throughout the mueller investigation the president saying, oh, sure, he'll talk and of course he never did. there's no plans for that to happen now if they wanted -- >> what's the point of saying it when it's never going to happen? >> i think it's a way to -- i can't get into the president's head or anyone else's as to why they do what they're doing, but it seems here that they have satisfied -- they have settled on attacking this process, this process has something that was flawed, something that was unsubstantiated from the get-go in saying that this is just a democratic ploy and doing and saying whatever they can to
underscore that message. that was sarah sanders overall message in that answer. >> what do you think? >> i think that -- i agree. first of all, ai gragree with kimberly. there are moments where you see admissions, sondland certainly the admissions of what's happened. you've seen in the past rudy giuliani admit to different things. i mean, over the last few years, right, he'll say, yeah, of course the president did this. there is this lack of appreciation and understanding that what happened was wrong. that's why -- i mean, if sarah sanders says, right, oh, yeah. sure. he'll let everybody testify. i don't believe that. and it's been reported that that's not true. but let's pretend that he does. if so, it's because he generally doesn't think there's a problem. it's why he released the phone transcript. >> most administrations when they're dealing with a congress that is asking for document station or testimony or impeaching a president will go to congress and say how can we work with you? we have nothing to hide. >> right. >> they might saber rattle and
say we don't think we should have to do this but ultimately find a way to work with congress to do it. this administration has moved the mark, moved the bar over saying we're not going to cooperate in any way whatsoever, not even to have somebody sit down and not answer questions and invoke executive privilege. rosalind, thank you for sharing your new reporting. hagar and joel and kimberly, happy thanksgiving. still to come, everyone wants to peek, but when it comes to peeking, when is the right time to pique? steve kornacki will explain. plus, some
vulnerable house democrats say their party is not helping them fight gop attacks back home. is it because two of the big financial backers who usually help spread the message for impeachment and why the president is not doing a good job are now running for president themselves? but first, the president will have his day on capitol hill. he asked for this. will he use it?
why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us
you can do it without fingersticks. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.
the impeachment inquiry is headed to house judiciary. next week it holds its first hearing where the goal will be to explain to the american public what a high crime and misdemeanor is. >> how does this president's actions measure up to what other people have been impeached for or confronted with impeachment for. for example, richard nixon
ordered or was come police it in a burglary at the watergate hotel. bill clinton lied about sex. how do this president's actions relate to those kinds of offenses? are they worse? are they around the same kind of gravity? >> that was congressman jaycee raskin house judiciary talking to me last night. now for the first time donald trump will be able to represent himself and be able to have legal counsel. he's been complaining about the process so far, claiming it's unfair and that he can't defend himself, so will he use this opportunity starting next week house judiciary to have somebody make his arguments? or will he continue to call the system rigged. joining me political congressional reporter melanie zanona and new york university law professor, ryan goldman. everybody, welcome. goodwin. i'm sorry.
melanie, what does this judiciary hearing going to look like? i know it will be academics and not fact witnesses. jamie raskin is holding up a pretty high bar to say we have to define what this is and convince the american public that what the president has done is enough to impeachment. >> right. this will be a lot different than what we saw with the intel hearings, which as you mentioned were much more focussed on facts, fact witnesses, gathering evidence. now it's up to the house judiciary committee to sort of put a bow on all this evidence. they're going to try to conci concisely put this into a narrative. explain to the american people what an impeachable offense is and be more hearings why they think trump's actions amount to an impeachable offense. something else to keep in mind, katy, you move from the intel to the judiciary committee, it will be a lot more combative. the argument will be much more politically focussed. there are a lot of fighters on both sides. there are a number of freedom caucus members on the republican
side. we are expecting a lot more political warfare when we switch over to the judiciary. >> you're expecting pretty fierily public hearings. >> exactly. >> ryan, the democrats are going to lay it down. they're going to say the president did this. it is just as bad, if not worse, than what clinton did in 1998. it's just as bad, if not worse, than what nixon did even though he wasn't officially impeached. it's just as bad, if not worse, than what history has suggested. how do they do that. >> the best argument is if you just look at the articles of impeachment for nixon, they graft pretty closely on to the allegations against president trump. so, the abuse of power is one of the first articles for nixon, and the abuse of power included using things like investigations that had no national security purpose. you can actually just take almost some of those words and then just insert donald trump and insert a foreign government carrying out some of those investigations. then there's also the part of
contempt of congress. so, for president trump, it would just be grafting it on to intimidation of witnesses, telling, you know, potential witnesses that they're spies and could be subject to the death penalty if he had his way. so i think some of those very close and worse because nixon didn't involve these kind of national security implications. >> are they going to be bolstered by being able to tie it so keclearly to a past impeachment case. listen, it was bad then. if you're going to admit it was bad then and agree with what was happening with nixon or clinton, then you can't disagree with what's happening now? >> that's right. it's such a strong argument. it's such a consensus view among law experts and historians that nixon was absolutely -- it was absolutely correct to impeach him. and so if that's our benchmark and this actually crosses the benchmark pretty strongly, that's a strong argument. there are other historical argues as well. so frank bowman a historian of the impeachment clause and said the very reason the framers set this up is that the president
might abuse his authority to enrich himself. that's what abuse of power is all about. so they can even talk about it in terms of historical basis for it. there's a lot of strong pieces that they have at their disposal. and i think it does put pressure on some of the republicans because they've tried to move the goal post. will herd at the very end of the hearing said i don't have evidence here of bribery and said this as well on talking to the media, he means like as a crime. that's just not the benchmark. >> melanie, the president is welcome to his counsel there. any indication they'll take up jerry nadler? >> the signals from the trump world and the white house is that the president is not likely to participate and bring his counsel. republicans don't want to validate what they decried is a sham process the last few months. >> the president can't defend himself. now they're saying, no, we're not going to do it. >> democrats exactly that's their point. they're going to say republicans
can no longer complain about being shut out of the process if they're choosing to give up their seat at the table but republicans are going to do this any way. they also feel like republican's defense is in strong hands with the judiciary members there, doug collins, using this to audition for a senate seat. jim jordan and john rat cliff. so republicans feel like they don't need -- there isn't much value to bring in trump's own lawyer, at least at this point. but as you notice, katy, anything can change with this white house. >> you always have to have that caveat. i understand that. >> they have until sunday to make that decision. >> i think politico play book this morning described it as trying to nail jello to a wall. >> exactly. >> melanie, thank you very much and ryan goodman as well. next up, new swing state polling is shaking up the 2020 democratic primary. it's changing again. pete buttigieg spent the last couple days trying to clear up some old comments about race. we're going to dig into it with
the reverend al sharpton. >> if you want to see some holiday lights this thanksgiving eve, just hit an interstate near you. this is the 405, right? check out the gridlock in l.a., a complete sea of red and white. oh, god, i don't miss los angeles when i see this. it's only going to get worse, guys. today is a historically busy travel day, whether it's by road, rail or air, aaa estimates 55 million people will travel this year on the roads. the most -- and the air, the most since 2005. take your time and leave early. along with record travelers, there's bad weather, 19 million people are under winter alerts from california to michigan. 88 million are under wind alerts from the midwest to the northeast. across the southwest, an estimated 16 million are under flash flood warnings. i have an idea, just go to work instead. that's what we're doing here. happy holidays, everyone. everyoe
whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.
joining me now is steve kornacki. so, steve, on the subject of piquing, when is the best time to pique? >> this is the big question in politics. buttigieg is on the rise and his campaign would like to believe that number will keep going up and he'll run away with the nomination, but we have seen more than a few cases in the past where the candidate who is on the rise in november, on the rise in december ends up an afterthought when the voting actually begins. so this is the democratic race right now. this is the new national poll from quinnipiac yesterday. let's look back at the last time there was sort of a wide open jumbled field on the democratic side. when democrats were trying to come up with a candidate to take out a republican president. this was back in 2004, george w. bush was the president. the iraq war democrats had a pretty wide open primary that year. this is what the national poll looks like in this race right now. this is what it looked like this same poll at this same point in 2003. the front-runner was howard dean. howard dean ended up -- he won his home state of vermont and
nothing else. joe lieberman was in second place. his biggest claim to fame in the 2004 race was when he said he got a three-way tie for third place in new hampshire. he was in second place at this point. the actual nominee if 2004 was all the way back in single digits, john kerry back at 8% at this point in 2004. the guy who came in second place that year, john edwards was back at 5%. so again, this speaks to how fluid and wide open these races can be. same thing in the early stage, this is the new new hampshire poll out this week. talk about wide open, four candidates within 4% of each other. first place at only 16%. but again, how much can change? some poll boston globe poll this point in that 2004 cycle this is what new hampshire looked like. john kerry beat howard dean by ten point. what happened in 2004, iowa happened. iowa happened. john kerry surged very late in iowa. final days of that campaign, won the iowa caucuses. when that happened, his numbers surged in new hampshire. his numbers surged in the south.
his numbers surged everywhere. he won the nomination easily. but you never would have guessed it looking at the polls in november. >> steve, wasn't it really the scream happened howard dean in. >> why is that the marker for everyone's memory? >> it was a memorable moment. everybody watched it live on television. he had just lost. it was a very bad loss for him but he had just lost. kerry beat him by 20 points in iowa. >> steve, thank you for going through the numbers for us. pete buttigieg may be inspired by some recent poll numbers but the south bend mayor is still struggling to address his record on race, particularly in light of a recently unearthed video from 2011. >> because the kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them. right? you see a lot of parts -- >> that's part of the motivation. >> yeah. you're motivated because you believe at the end of your educational process there's a reward, there's a stable life. there's a job. and there are a lot of kids, especially the lower income,
minority neighborhoods who literally just haven't seen it work. there isn't somebody they know personally. >> and i think that's what meant -- >> those comments led to the roots michael hair yet to call buttigieg a lying m.f. he went on to write mayor pete's b.s.ry is not just wrong but proof it proves men like him are more willing to perpetuate the fantastic neighborhood of negro neighborhoods needing more role models and briefcase carriers. buttigieg called hair yet to discuss the article and in a new article he speaks positively about the nature of the conversation saying buttigieg engaged with his criticism and listened to what he had to say. he was still pretty critical, though. joining the host of politics nation here on msnbc, you just saw him on that polling that steve was going through reverend al sharpton, josh ledderman. josh, i got a really long email
yesterday from pete buttigieg's team after i did this story on "meet the press" daily. we tried to get somebody from their team to talk to us today including mayor pete himself. they're very clearly aware that this could be an issue for them. >> they certainly are. they know that this broader issue about his struggle to appeal to minority voters not just african-americans but also hispanics and other minorities is the biggest problem potentially existential problem for him in the campaign. they've been trying to be very proactive about addressing it. polls are any indication that hasn't been working particularly well for him. he's been trying to respond very quickly to this latest controversy, saying that while he felt that some of the characterizations of him in that piece was unfair, he also understood some of the concerns and that what he said in that 2011 tape was not the totality of what he understood then nor now about the situation. he also shared some of what it was like to speak with the
author of that article. let's take a listen to that. >> somebody who -- let's say strongly disapproved of some comments i made years ago that somebody had dug up. and so, you know, sometimes we forget i think especially as we're consuming media that this is a conversation among human beings. and so, i realize that i would just call him and thankfully he was amenable to that and we had a conversation. i think it was a very healthy conversation. yes, he is right when he said my opinion. when he says that we've got to look at the structural factors that drive different racial outcomes in our country. >> katy, the buttigieg campaign has been saying that aside from what he said in that 2011 tape that there was a broader point he was trying to make which is that there are structural obstacles to success in our educational system, that continue to this day and that those obstacles disproportionally affect low income and minority students. and that particular claim
buttigieg is not pack backing away from. >> well, i think clearly there are structural problems in terms of our education system and our whole social setup period. >> he called it racist. >> yeah. but it is base on race. the structural problem is racism. i think what disturbed a lot of us and the tape showing of mayor buttigieg, he was running for mayor at the time, he said that there are people in these -- >> don't have role models. >> who don't ever see. that's not true. i grew up on welfare with food stamps. i saw role models all the time in my community that were successful. so, to draw this monolith is inaccurate. and i think michael harriett was right to not deal with the structural position that blacks were put in by no choice of their own. and i think that that is what
was offensive, when you saw the tape. i give credit to mayor pete for calling harriet and give credit to harriet for taking the call. a lot of people wouldn't have taken the call. it implies that it's something inherently wrong with us rather than the system. >> there's a problem with the family structure in the black community that there's no one for kids to look up to. he, he that's what he was taking issue with and saying it is actually just racism. and this writer, michael harriet, the original article was really compelling. the followup article about his conversation with mayor pete was also really compelling. and certainly really eye opening. there is a divide right now among -- i don't want to call them monolith but a divide among black voters in terms of age, older black voters are more likely to support joe biden right now and the younger black voters, according to the polling i've seen, are more enticed by
the more progressive candidates in the field, people that are talking about addressing the structural problems that are currently in place. >> and it is -- it may be according to polling some of the age difference in the black community, but let's not forget that some of the more progressives are old themselves. i mean, liz warren and bernie sanders are in their 70s. it's not as easy as an age thing as what you are discussing and what you're raising. i think that was harriet's point. you have to deal with the institutional racism that still exist and you can't blame the victim for being victimized. but at the same time, i had role models and i come out of a single parent home and many of us did. and the role models were able despite the structural disconnect and the structural unfairness. that's insulting to act like some of those that gave us that
kind of hope and faith any way was something that did not give us the drive to be like other people. there's a lot of problems with that statement. >> why aren't kamala harris or cory booker polling higher among the black community? >> i could say that it's any number of reasons in terms of access to funds, in terms of them having the right, strong message that could resonate that gets the same coverage. i think they're both very qualified candidates. and again, i'm not one that believes all the polls are right. i mean, you just showed the polls from '04. >> they change so much. >> i was at 8% in iowa which means i was 5 points ahead of a guy with $52 billion today. only at 3%. i'm one that is a living example don't go by the polls, but i think that if cory booker and senator harris was given the same kind of exposure, they would resonate more and i'm not sure they won't surprise people
when the real polls are done any way, when we get to iowa all the way to south carolina. >> we have two months left before we start casting votes. reverend al sharpton, nice to see you. josh, always nice to see you. i hope you got some sleep between last night and now. he was on the 10:00 p.m. with me. and still ahead a new investigation finds amazon has pushed its workers past their limits to meet demands. i'm going to speak to the reporter who uncovered the story and why it is a very disturbing story. but next, as vulnerable democrats face gop attacks, two billionaires who spent millions on democratic causes and taking down the president are now spending their money on themselves. are now spending their money on themselves only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i don't know...
this medicare thing is complicated. planning for medicare shouldn't be this hard. that's why unitedhealthcare offers one-on-one guidance. our medicare advisors are here to guide you and explain your medicare options, including a range of aarp medicare plans from unitedhealthcare- the only ones to carry the aarp name. at unitedhealthcare, we know everyone's needs are different... it's the reason we give you lots of plan options: plans with a nationwide network... plans that let you see any doctor who accepts medicare- even plans with dental, vision and hearing coverage. have health questions? ask about a plan that gives you 24/7 access to a registered nurse. honey, have you seen dr. newman? call today and learn how aarp medicare plans from unitedhealthcare can help reduce your out-of-pocket costs to save you money. or what about saving on thousands of brand name prescriptions with a low-or-zero-dollar copay? speaking of prescriptions savings,
last year some plan members saved an average of $6,500 on their medications. and to help you stay healthy, there's renew active, the gold standard in medicare fitness programs for body and mind. offering a gym membership and an online brain health program from aarp® staying sharp, all at no additional cost. check out our options that will travel with you anywhere in the u.s. unitedhealthcare has the plans with benefits to fit your needs- it's probably why medicare recipients choose us more than any other provider. open enrollment ends december 7th, so now's the time to talk. why don't we give unitedhealthcare a call? great idea. thank you for calling unitedhealthcare. how may i help you? talk to a unitedhealthcare medicare advisor today. we'll make planning for medicare... a whole lot easier. hi.
a recent politico report indicates that vulnerable democrats are watching in horror as gop impeachment attacks dell lose their district back home. the irony being two of the democratic leaning billions who launhced the launchest pro-impeachment campaign in the country are spending their money on their own presidential runs. joining "the washington post" politico reporter dave wiegle. dave, truth be told we fashion this segment around a tweet of yours that you sent out the other day. talk to me what about the irony is or why democrats are kind of walking a tight rope saying we don't want these billionaires to
come spend their money on themselves. democrats in the -- that are running for president obviously. but at the same time happy to take their money on attacking the president in various states. >> well, they obviously can't tell steyer or bloomberg how to spend their money, but they had gotten use to, i think, a certain size cushion of money that both steyer and bloomberg were providing for years. bloomberg spent $100 million on campaign ads for democrats in swing districts in 2018. tom steyer spent several years in 2017 on a need to impeach campaign as well as next gen the voter outreach organization. both of those organizations still exist. but they're not tom steyer's only mission anymore and they have taken less precedence than his campaign ads, which in addition to not being about impeachment, they're just not -- they're not really part of this at all. the bloomberg commercials are introducing him in a typical
biographical spot. the steyer ads a series of them, more than any other candidate setting up issues like term limits, calling washington broken in some ways emphasizing the throw your hands up, everything is corrupt in washington any way messaging that cuts against democrats. >> were they offering a certain amount of political cover for democrats in vulnerable districts who maybe didn't want to be -- wanted to promote the idea of impeachment but didn't want to be the one doing it when you have steyer out with those ads, when you have bloomberg potentially helping to fund ads against the president. you can say it's coming from over here, over here it's not really coming from me directly. >> well, steyer beginning of this congress had sent people before this, 2017, had sent members of congress books on impeachment signed by him to get them motivated. he had what he seemed to be a conversation between himself and these new members.
what the new members want specifically, you quoted politico, is some kind of answer on the air waves in their districts because what's happening now is a year before the next election republican groups with functionally unlimited money because it's early and ads are cheap, running ads with ocasio-cortez, congress is not doing anything to work across the aisle, they're focussed entirely on impeachment. what democrats would like is some sort of answer to that, maybe to break it 50/50. if we're going to have an ad war, let's not be totally disarmed here. and that's not happening because of the focus of the wealthy donors. now it was democrats who decided to impeach, tom steyer did not hypnotize them into doing so. the events made them to decide to do this. specifically they would just like a little bit more ball last and more cover than they're getting. two money who could provide that, have moved on to other things. >> thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. new investigation has found
amazon workers are breaking their backs literally. and the holiday season is not the only reason. that's next. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®. how did you know? mom...that was taken at the farm. it was in this small little village. in connemara? right! connemara it is. honestly, we went there- oh, oh look at that! look at that.
i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. could you email me the part great about geicon, tim. making it easy to switch and save hundreds? oh yeah, sure. um. you don't know my name, do you? (laughs nervously) of course i know your name. i just get you mixed up with the other guy. what's his name? what's your name? switch to geico®. you could save 15% or more on car insurance. could you just tell me? i want this to be over.
(vo) some things are worth preserving. you can choose the national park foundation to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru, like the all new outback. (vo 2) get 0.9% during the subaru share the love event. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. and the number of packages soar, a new investigation finds employees are pushed way beyond their limits and forced into working dangerous conditions joining me, the reporter behind
an investigation into the amazon factories, will evans. he writes for "reveal" for the center for investigative this is a really difficult article and investigation to read about. looking into the -- the -- i think people knew -- have an idea thatne it's difficult workg in an amazon factory. but you detail some -- some truly harrowing experiences where a woman had a number of slipped disks. yousl talk about how there was gas leak and workers were still forced to work through a gas leak. you talk about a man who was crushed byho a forklift and it seemed like the circumstances around it were papered over in order for indiana to get -- remain on the bid list for a new amazon factory. these are some really serious allegations. f >> yeah. it was shocking. i mean, when i started looking into this, i had no idea. i had talked to a former amazon safety manager who saidfo you he to get the injury numbers. they're -- they're sky high. and so i -- you know, embarked
on getting injury records from around the country from amazon warehouses. and we ended up getting 23 amazon warehouses and found that these injury rate overall was me than double the industry average. and hearing these -- these accounts of people stuck at home, you know, in lifelong pain essentially, meanwhile they've been replaced by the next worker as long as they can make it until they get injured. it was -- it's -- it was astounding. >> ashley robinson, the amazon spokesperson, said amazon's injury rates aresp high because it's aggressive about recording worker injuries and cautious about allowing injured workers to return to work before they're ready. >> yeah. that's -- amazon says basically they're really good at counting injuries and other companies aren't as good at that. even if that were true, and a lot of workers would beg to differ, butou you know, even if you're good at counting injuries, you're still injuring a ton of people. i mean, some of these rates are just off the charts. you have a warehouse where 26
injuries per 100 workers. that's almost a quarter of the workers. these are rates that, you know, the former amazon safety manager, people who worked at the company itself said, you know, they're way too high. we know it's a problem. but the company's unwilling to address the root cause, which is these unrealistic demands that they're putting on workers. >> let me ask you this. i'm going to read through a couple of the most egregious portions of this -- of this investigation. you say when disaster struck at one indiana warehouse, amazon's economic might have helped the company evade accountability when aev maintenance worker was crushed to death by a forklift there, state officials of indiana which then was jocking for amazon's second headquarters sided with the company over their own investigator who was looking into the circumstances surrounding that death. in another plant, you say that bathroom visitssa are tracked carefully at amazon's fulfillment center. so employees get creative. adam kester who worked at a
center ino phoenix until last year said he and other workers would bring customers' orders into the bathroom with them to scan midway through. it sounds disgusting he acknowledged. you also talk about a gas leak incident. managers wouldn't slow down. severalma workers said even thoh they were dizzy and vomiting. they were told they had to use personal time off if they wanted to leave. are there consequences here for amazon for these sort of allegations? it's very serious stuff.az >> it is serious stuff and i think the through line that you're seeing is production getting those packages out the door is more important than anything else. >> does the consumer have responsibility here?mp >> well, you know, amazon believes that the consumers want and need to have faster and faster delivery. that's, you know, we're going from two-day delivery to one day now and, you know, amazon says customers are delighted. so if customers don't want that or if they don't want that at the expense of all these worker injuries and working conditions, then maybe amazon should know
one more thing before we go. oh, gosh. australia's on fire as it approaches summer since september more than 50 wildfires have been fueled by high winds and high temperatures. 2 million acres have been destroyed. apparently, no one here knows that we're on television. guys. all right. hold on. this is a sad story. six deaths have been reported and it -- it's intense but australia knows what it's doing. the country's warning systems are well advanced. it is not the case for australia's wildlife, though. and a warning, you are about to
see images that are not easy to look at. the fires have taken a massive toll on australia's koala bear population. they're closer to extinction than ever before. australians are taking action. firefighters have been seen running into flames to save them. so are everyday citizens, like this woman who did not think twice when she saw a koala running from the flames clearly freaking out. she got out of her car, grabbed him, poured water over him to soothe his burns, and wrapped him in her own clothes. she took him to a nearby koala hospital where he gained international attention. and the name ellenborough lewis. but this koala did not survive. not all of them will make it out. but a go fund me page has been set up to help fight for author survival. nearly $2 million has been pledged so far. across australia's fire lines, it is unclear how many koalas have died. officials estimate it's somewhere between 350 and 1,000.
80% of their habitat is gone. 80%. and there are now growing calls for australia's government to pass a koala protection act. it would preserve habitats and trees vital to koalas, as well as protect them from hunting. the act was written in 2016 but never passed. it was modeled after the bald eagle protection act here in america. i'm sorry, that was a sad story and we had a little bit of miscommunication in here. this is all because of climate change. much of it is because of climate change. >> yep. >> and it's really difficult to see those images and to see -- to see koala bears, cute and fuzzy koala bears. but we have to also remember it's not just wildlife. this is affecting people, too. it's affecting children. it's affecting adults. and it's a problem that -- that we just are not taking seriously enough. >> four reports in the last week including one from the u.n. like, nobody comes out with an
outlier report and says you guys are overreacting. it's a serious matter. and the question is, are we equipped to actually deal with it? it's not about whether you think it's true or not. >> can we deal with it when we have administrations change every four to eight years? i'm not sure we can. >> big tasks. see you later this afternoon? >> yep. >> 5 kwlok? >> yep. >> it is tuesday, november 27th, an illegitimate sham partisan process. that's the mantra coming from the white house on the impeachment inyoury as more evidence piles up against the president, trump and his lawyers have until sunday to decide whether they are going to take part in the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. that phase is going to be led by the house judiciary committee. tasked with drafting the articles of impeachment. next wednesday's hearing is titled constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment. as the white house deliberating a decision, we are getting even more details that undercut the administration's main defense. "the new york times" reports that lawyers from the white house's counsel's office told trump in late august about t