Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Katy Tur  MSNBC  December 5, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PST

11:00 am
>> i wish this was every day. i love it. >> thank you. take a shot. take a photo. make this our new show photo right now. >> bye, guys. all right. thank you very much. good afternoon. i'm katy tur. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in washington where the democrats say they must move quickly on impeachment because president trump is a threat democracy. it is day 73 of the impeachment inquiry. surrounded by american flags this morning, speaker nancy pelosi announced house democrats will start drafting articles of impeachment. >> our democracy is what is at stake. the president leaves us no choice but to act because he's trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance the our founders and love for america, today i'm asking our
11:01 am
chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> house judiciary senate's next hearing for monday where lawmakers will present evidence against the president. right now it looks like a full vote on impeachment can come as early as two weeks from now, a week before christmas. the white house has until tomorrow to decide whether it will take congressman jerry nadler on his offer to formally defend the president during hearings. but they are not expected to. regardless, democrats are moving forward and they are rebuffing criticism that they are moving too fast. let's get right to capitol hill. joining me now, msnbc correspondent garrett haake. so the democrats are trying to make this argument that they need to move quickly because donald trump tried to cheat in the 2020 election and he's going to try to cheat again. >> yeah, that's exactly right, katy. they say that in part because the president refused to say that he's done anything wrong that they may be cheating still. democrats point back to the inspector general's report, which was the kickoff to this
11:02 am
whole thing and labeled the call with ukraine of concern. you heard that language from speaker pelosi. it can't wait for one of the two constitutional remedies for a bad president, they say. that's a presidential election. it has to be dealt with right now. and that's why they're moving so quickly on it. republicans are trying to turn that against them. kevin mccarthy in his press conference this morning said this is democrats trying to fit any kind of impeachment they can into a time line that they had already preset. but democrats' counter is they feel they have to act right now because the president remains someone who is unapologetically reached out for this foreign assistance in an election. >> they're still investigating and could potentially still have hearings. there's going to be another judiciary hearing on impeachment next week. does that kind of bolster mccarthy's argument that the time line is already preset if they're still scheduling hearings but already moving towards drafting articles? >> not necessarily. i mean, whyou have two parallel
11:03 am
tracks. monday will be the staff councils letting out what the majority and minority reports found. we have the reports already, but it's seen as a necessary step to move forward with presenting articles. what schiff and the intel committee are doing is in the course of investigating this first call with ukraine where we got so far, we've uncovered all this other information about possible illegality and we're going to press ahead. that's the phone records and the other information about other witnesses, for example, who haven't come forward. you have two separate tracks operating largely independently of each other, but the reality is, you know, you still have time for those tracks to converge before a house floor vote or before a potential senate trial sometime next year. >> garrett haake on capitol hill. thank you very much. the democrats are moving towards impeachment and they're doing it at a historically fast
11:04 am
pace. something that has been noted by observers on both sides of the aisle, including john turley, the republican witness from yesterday's impeachment hearing. >> fast and narrow is not a good recipe for impeachment. that's the case with johnson, narrow with the case with clinton. they tend not to survive. they tend to collapse in front of the senate. >> democrats say the process needs to move quickly because they argue the white house is not cooperating. the courts won't rule on any cooperation anytime soon, and the president once again tried to cheat in the next election. if they don't act now, he may try to do it again. let's welcome kurt bardella and federal prosecutor doug burns. gentlemen, welcome. curt, the democrats would, if they had the ability, would love to have john bolton and mike
11:05 am
pompeo, love to have mick mulvaney, rudy giuliani come and sit before them and potentially give the direct evidence that the president ordered them to tell ukraine to start the investigations because he was withholding or he would withhold aid. but the courts can't rule fast enough, they say. do they have a point? >> they are right about the courts not moving fast enough, but where they miss an opportunity is to put public pressure on the president and white house who's blocking those people from testifying. to have marathon hearings back to back where the american people can't digest the substance of what is unfolding before their eyes, they throw it all together, it kind of got lost in the shuffle, and it's moving so quickly that you're not seeing the public case being made by democrats. >> what would you have liked to have seen. >> rather than having eight witnesses in one day, multiply that by two or three times, i'd
11:06 am
like them to do one hearing a week. each person that testifies was terrible for this president, but no one really got to dive in and focus on that because as soon as we got through one testimony, there was another hearing that afternoon, and then another hearing two days after that. >> seems like there was broad agreement on the democrats moving too fast. just look at these headlines on impeachment that have come out in the past few days. democrats sprinting to the impeachment finish line, democrats have urgent new impeachment argument, why democrats are moving quickly. doug, looking at the evidence that they do already have, they were able to gather, and also once again underscoring the president himself asked for the investigations on a phone call and mick mulvaney said that it was a quid pro quo during a news conference, get over it. do you think that they have enough to make the argument that the president committed bribery, that the president obstructed justice by not allowing others to testify? >> where i come out on it is they could probably go forward with abuse of power, abuse of
11:07 am
office specifically legally. extortion is bad because that's a statute and it's not in the constitution. bribery u less of a problem because as you heard, bribery in the constitution doesn't necessarily have to equate to bribery in the federal statute. if they're going to move quickly, and a lot of that has to do with stuff that's out of my expertise like the election and the timing. if they're going to move quick, the point is they would be -- abuse of power in office, not extortion, probably not bribery. on the question of going back to the mueller report, i don't think that's such a great idea, but they could use it as other bad-act evidence. >> the mueller investigation lasted over two years. it was very drawn out. there is this thinking that democrats learned a lesson from that, that it went on for too long, it got too confusing towards the end, the narrative
11:08 am
got lost. is that why they're seizing on this so quickly? >> i think that's part of the reason. i think regardless of how long this process was going to take, it was always going to be confusing to the american people. arguably russia's alleged conclusion is simpler than diplomacy with ukraine. as to the question of whether the mueller stuff goes in the impeachment articles, i thought it was interesting that chairman jerry nadler featured yesterday those portions of the mueller report pretty prominently in his opening statement. and then today we saw nancy pelosi mention bribery in her statement. so there could be some signals about what those two at least feel should be part of these articles of impeachment. i agree with doug that the more likely conclusion of mueller is likely to be kind of added on to the obstruction of justice.
11:09 am
>> garrett haake asked nancy pelosi about that today. let's listen. >> you understanding those previous investigations. do you want to see elements of the mueller report or these other -- >> i'm not going to talk about that. my claimer will be making recommendations. >> three, two --? she says she's not going to talk about it, aaron. why do you think she's not going to announce it herself. why is she deferring to jerry nadl nadler? >> i think she would rather send a signal as she did with the bribery talk earlier. maybe nadler would rather send a signal by talking about the mueller report in his opening statement. but there is a real question about how they want to proceed here with the actual articles. there may not be agreement. i think it's sensitive too because nancy pelosi has sidelined jerry nadler throughout much of this process, so the idea she's going to suddenly dictate the articles of impeachment might be a bit too
11:10 am
much for that situation. but i do think it's all an open question about exactly what's going to be included in the articles. >> let's talk about who is still convinceble now. who's persuadable still when it comes to impeachment. the standard thinking is that all these hearings have only served to harden everybody into the positions they already held. 538 makes the argument that that's not the case. how certain are you president trump committed an impeachable offense. 41% say they're absolutely certain. 34% say their pretty certain. somewhat certain, 18%. not certain, 6%. when you flip it and you ask how certain are you that he has not committed an impeachable offense, go down to somewhat certain, 19%. not certain at all, 11%. that's a significant block of voters who seem like they're not quite there either way. those are convinceble voters,
11:11 am
538 argues. if you were focused on convincing those voters, those who aren't necessarily watching impeachment hearings and are just getting the synthesized version of this on the nightly news or cell phones or "washington post" or a "new york times" article, what is the argument democrats should be making to them? how clear do they need to be? >> they need to be simple and clear. this bolsters the argument of why they should slow down to let them sink it. >> what's your time line? >> at least let it go through march. >> that gets into the primaries. >> the idea that anything happens in january or march will impact what people think in november is folly. the idea that we know that a year from now any voter going to the polls is going to go, i don't like what happened back in february, i'm going to vote this way, that's ludicrous. >> a number of people are currently on the campaign trail, senators who are going to have
11:12 am
to sit through a senate impeachment trial off the campaign trail during what is a very important time. >> you know what? they got elected to do a job and their job is to be a u.s. senator first and foremost. >> the democratic party is probably looking at this as a holistic process, not just what's happening in congress, but what's happening out there on the campaign trail. i mean, they have to be clear about it whether the senate will convict him. if you are a democratic operative, if you're a member of the leadership in the democratic party, do you want to poll elizabeth warren and bernie sanders off the campaign trail? do you want to pull amy klobuchar off the campaign trail or cory booker if these people are there. >> that's why they're going to lose the impeachment fight. they have started this investigation saying we need to get this donna as soon as possible. they have been told if you run
11:13 am
out the clock, we're going to let you do that. >> but he can run out the clock. how quickly are the courts going to rule on these witnesses. >> you made the point, which is it takes time to go to court. they are addressing them quickly, but i agree. it's interesting to hear about february and march. look, the point is this thing has a lot of moving parts. i tell you what, i don't see the story line -- >> what do they need to know? they have the president on a phone call on july 25th saying we need you to do us a favor, though. you have a number of witnesses from the foreign service, from omb, from the pentagon all talking about how the aid was withheld. you have the former foreign minister of ukraine talking to "the new york times" saying the ukrainian government knew about it on july 30th. >> let's face it, this is a matter of votes. so your point is -- >> are those people -- >> you can do whatever you want
11:14 am
right now. >> are house republicans, if rudy giuliani sat there and said yes, the president directed me, are you going to see devin nunes vote for impeachment. >> people may change their mind. >> if you have someone like jont up there saying that -- >> you think john bolton could change minds of republicans? >> this has been a fox news guy for his entire career. >> right. >> this is not a never trumper, a member of the deep state. this is one of the closest ideologically aligned people to donald trump. if he said this happened -- >> come on. i think once you go against donald trump, you are a member of the deep state. kurt bardella, thank you so much. doug burns, thank you. aaron blake, we appreciate it. up next, we'll look at the white house' strategy. it appears that strategy involves winding and dining the senate. as lawmakers continue to scrutinize dealings with ukraine, rudy giuliani goes back to ukraine, again. the man hand-picked by the attorney general to investigate the president's conspiracy
11:15 am
theories appears to conclude that they are, in fact, conspiracy theories. so what now? mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections.
11:16 am
don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪ without asking your doctor geico would like to take a moment to say thank you to our military service members at home and abroad for all their hard work and sacrifice. we all sleep easier knowing you're out there keeping us safe. and on a personal note... sfx: jet engines ... i just needed to get that off my chest. thank you. geico: proudly supporting the military for over 75 years.
11:17 am
11:18 am
. are you worried, sir, about the stain that impeachment might have on your legacy? >> no, not at all, no. not at all. it's a hoax. it's a hoax. it's a big, fat hoax. >> last hour president trump again called the impeachment inquiry a hoax, but the probe into his conduct is very real.
11:19 am
and the white house has until tomorrow to decide whether to mount a defense of the president in the house. that is the deadline set earlier this week by judiciary chairman jerry nadler. no word on what the trump administration has officially decided, but the president has made one thing clear. if he's going to be impeached by the house, he wants it to happen fast. in a series of tweets posted earlier, mr. trump suggested a quick impeachment would lead to a fair trial in a majority-republican senate. joining me now, "time" magazine senior white house correspondent brian bennett and spokesman kurt bardella. what is it going to look like when this trial goes to the senate? this white house -- jay sekulow was having lunch with senate republicans just the other day. maybe it was cipollone. the white house has had a number of republican senators over to the white house. what are they trying to do in order to keep republicans on
11:20 am
their side, brian? >> the senate is key. i mean, the opinion of about 20 republican senators is what matters most in the process going forward. it's almost a virtual certainty the president will be impeached by the house. it's going to go to the senate trail. those 20 republicans so far we haven't seen signs of mass defections. they would all have to jump at once to go against the president to vote for him to be removed. now, what are they going to be responsive to? most likely trump's popularity within the republican party, which right now is astronomical. and we haven't seen in the polling a dip in that. we're going to have to wait and see. what the democrats want to do is push as much information out as problem and have news that chips away at that number and that shows vulnerability among republicans in trump's popularity. that is the key thing. that is what the white house is really focused on. they're trying to make sure they keep those republican senators in line and understand just how popular trump still is within
11:21 am
the republican party. >> white house counsel pat cipollone that had lunch with senate republicans. i just want to correct the record on that. kurt bardella, are they confident that all of the senate republicans are going to stick with them on this? are there any standouts, any fence jumpers that they might be wor worried about? >> this is true for any issue, i feel. you always look at people like mitt romney or sue collins or lisa murkowski, people that might be potentially willing to consider different facts than what is being fed to them right now. but the white house has reason to feel confident that no republicans will split from them because no one has to this zbloi point. >> there's talk about them wanting to call hunter biden, joe biden. what's it going to look like in the senate? >> this is where i think that chief justice john roberts becomes the most important
11:22 am
figure because he presides over impeachment on the senate floor. this is a situation he's never been in and something we haven't seen contemporarily. so ultimately he's going to get to decide what witnesses, whether it is hunter biden or mick mulvaney or rudy giuliani. democrats will want to hear from those people that the white house has blocked so far. roberts will have the say on that. i don't know how that's going to play out. >> that could be interesting. the campaign is certainly using this to their advantage. they believe, at least they say they believe impeachment will help them get votes. brian, you write the trump campaign hasn't settled into a defensive crouch. they're using the threat to mobilize supporters. listen, this is the same thing they did in 2016. instead of running away from a
11:23 am
controversy, donald trump ran straight at a controversy, and they used that to their advantage. are they of the mind that everything that worked for them in 2016 is going to work again in 2020? is it just because they're relying on the fundraising numbers and how much they're able to haul in when this happens? >> the impeachment is going to happen in the house. the question for the campaign was how do you maximize the benefit of the situation? they decided one thing to do was to invest heavily in facebook ads and other social media buys immediately within pelosi announcing the impeachment inquiry. this is a matter of scale. i mean, campaigns always fundraiser off big controversies, but what the trump campaign has done is on a massive, massive scale. and they put more money into facebook ads about impeachment than they spent at any point in the last year and a half, at any
11:24 am
point in the midterms in 2018, at any point during the mueller investigation. they have really put their money where their mouth is. they aren't just saying they feel like impeachment could be a way to mobilize the base and fund raise. on top of that, the money is rolling in. within three days of house speaker nancy pelosi said he was going to launch the inquiry, the campaign raised $15 million. that's basically as much as they spent on facebook ads in the whole year. and that number is very, very high compared to other candidates running in 2020. >> here's the variable, though. here's what some 2020 campaigns will tell you. donald trump in 2016 wasn't running against his own record. right now for 2020 he's running against his own record. what biden, what buttigieg, what booker, warren, sanders, what they all have to their advantage right now is that donald trump has a three-plus-year record,
11:25 am
and they can use that against him. this is one of those things that they can use against him in the election run. >> this isn't now a theoretical, what would a trump president look like. we know what that looks like. that's why the democrats are talking about health care, jobs, and the working class. this president is vulnerable. we heard for the entire run-up to the midterms this president and republicans say if you give a democrat house, they're going to impeach us. guess what, the voters gave them a democrat house and this is what's happening. so i'm not sure running against impeachment is going to work for trump because it hasn't so far. >> they did warn against it in 2018. kurt bardella and brian bennett, thank you. the man tasked by the doj to investigate the president's conspiracy theories finds they are conspiracy theories. but will mr. trump's attorney general ever believe it? next, rudy giuliani is back in ukraine. it's like the beatles song kpaept ukraine and not ussr. new?
11:26 am
-well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives.? and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.
11:27 am
i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common
11:28 am
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. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to to see proof in action. a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena® 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.
11:29 am
♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ . a source directly involved in rudy giuliani's trip to europe confirms to nbc news that giuliani is currently in kiev,
11:30 am
ukraine. the source says he's there conducting interviews as part of his investigation into the bidens and his bid to undercut the impeachment investigation. "the washington post" also reports that on the very same day, house investigators listened to testify from legal scholars, giuliani met with a ukrainian lawmaker working to build a case against hunter biden. joining me now, "washington post" political investigative report rod lyndh helderman and michael fuchs. the president runs toward controversy. seems like giuliani is now doing it too. back in ukraine and talking with an investigator about hunter biden about the exact stuff the president is being investigated for? >> that's exactly right. i think he is determined to show that he did nothing wrong and to show it by doing it all over again. he is meeting with this
11:31 am
parliamentarian who has been very vocal on the biden theory. there's been some reporting today that president zelensky's office is not terribly pleased that he is there. they were surprised he was coming and said no one from the administration plans to speak with him. he's also been meeting with prosecutors who form part of his investigation to this point, including yuri will you telutse >> normally people wouldn't go back to ukraine when they're going investigated or looked into over their dealings in ukraine. rudy giuliani's two business associates have been indicted. they were stopped from leaving the country. what is your reaction to seeing him brazenly go back out there? >> well, i think it's a very stark reminder in the midst of these hearings and proceedings going on right now in washington that the president is using his power, both his official power
11:32 am
and through his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, to try to advance his interests in winning the 2020 election by getting a foreign power involved and that he will not stop doing that. no matter what happens, despite an impeachment proceeding right now against him, he's going to continue doing that. the great reporting that rosalind did about all the calls between giuliani and the white house in the last year or so i think reveals the extent to which giuliani was in touch regularly with all sorts of white house officials, including what seems likely to be the president himself. and so one other question we have right now is, is the president aware that rudy giuliani was going back to ukraine this week? if so, for what purpose? >> i want to get to those logs in a moment. doesn't this underscore the argument that the democrats are making that they need to do this quickly because the president tried to do it and he'll try to
11:33 am
do it again? >> i think that's absolutely right. we need to take a step back and see the ukraine scandal in a broader context. in 2016 and beyond, it was russia. the president asked at a press conference, as i know you remember very well, for russia to look at the emails of his opponent. that very day, russia started doing that. and then, again, he's done this with ukraine in 2019. and again a couple months ago as the proceedings unfolded. he asked china to do the same thing. and so the whole point is that it's not about -- just about ukraine and national security, it's about the 2020 election. president trump has proven he wants to get foreign actors involved in helping him within the election and he will continue to do that unless he's held to account. >> rosalind, talk about those call logs, ari melber were going over them in realtime as that
11:34 am
report came out just the other day. we noticed a number of calls between rudy giuliani and the office of management and budget. we have highlighted here this negative 1 number. but rudy giuliani and the office of management and budget, what reason could rudy giuliani have to talk to omb? what reason could the president's personal attorney have to talk to the password government that controls finances? >> so that's a real mystery. it has not yet been solved. mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff is also the head of omb. and we don't quite know how those numbers have been coded, why it's been coded omb. so one mystery is is that actually mick mulvaney, the president's chief of staff? also very interesting for him to be talking to him but maybe not necessarily directly about budgetary issues. on the other hand, could it be an omb staffer or that rudy
11:35 am
giuliani was talking about this issue of military aid all the way back in april? at this moment we just don't know. >> what about negative 1? who could that be? >> negative 1, the widespread thought is that it is likely the president. there's sort of a striking pattern of calls in which rudy giuliani calls the white house switch board and then very soon thereafter receives a phone call back from this negative 1 number. so it would stand to reason that that perhaps is a phone associated with the president. but of course we just don't really entirely know for sure. >> we will be waiting to find out. rod lyndh, thank you so much. michael, thank you as well. coming up, the current 2020 field is the most diverse democratic field in history. so what could the next debate stage be all white candidates? next up, when conspiracy theories prove to be just that. new reporting on how the man
11:36 am
hand-picked to validate some of the president's favorites says he cannot. nnot write my name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right.
11:37 am
when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability
11:38 am
to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on how did you find great-grandma's recipe? we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered.
11:39 am
(employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er n most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. what you're going to see, i predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country. so you have a fisa report coming out. if it's historic, you're going to see something. and then perhaps even more
11:40 am
importantly, you have durham coming out, the u.s. attorney, and he's already announced it's criminal. >> for months president trump has promised he would be vindicated by a set of twin investigations launched into the origins of the russia investigation and whether the fbi unjustifiably spied on his campaign. "the washington post" was first to report that the prosecutor hand-picked by attorney general william barr could not offer evidence to the justice department's inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by american intelligence. in fact, the findings reportedly conclude that the fbi had adequate cause to launch its investigation. according to the post, barr is casting doubt on those conclusions. "washington post" national security reporter matt zapotosky, and doug barnes. walk us through what you found in your reporting. >> yeah. we were looking at this
11:41 am
inspector general report or drafts of it, and we were looking to determine what is in that, this thing that's expected to be released on monday. one interesting thing we learned was about this conservative conspiracy theory having to do with a guy named joseph mifsud who was critical to the predicate for the fbi to open the investigation. conservatives have theorized that mifsud was a u.s. intelligence plan and the whole trump campaign was set up. but what we found is that horowitz, the inspector general, couldn't find any evidence to substantiate that. he queried u.s. intelligence agencies and reaches out to john durham, the prosecutor hand picked by attorney general bill barr, and durham tells horowitz he too has no evidence to substantiate that mifsud was an american intelligence asset setting up the trump campaign, sort of undercutting to these
11:42 am
conservative theories about what horowitz or durham might find. >> we haven't seen the whole report yet, so is there any indication there could be more in there that has not yet been revealed to the press? >> very true. we have not seen the full report. we were careful to note in our story that we have not seen the full report. and i should say too that this inspector general report suspended it doesn't give the fbi and the justice department kind of a clean bill of health. it does find some failings along the way on the russia investigation, a low-level fbi lawyer, for example, doctoring a document. he's now under criminal investigations. some problems with how the fbi sought a warrant to surveil a different trump campaign adviser. the inspector general does identify problems and we have not seen the whole document yet. we're just addressing this one thing on mifsud and his role in this. >> those two things are serious in themselves but the larger point is the president was under the impression that the entire russia investigation was not
11:43 am
fair. >> right. >> and it was concocted by the fbi and the intelligence community because they hated him and they were trying to keep him out of office. durham was his hand-picked guy, horowitz was also doing this. >> right. >> what does this do to the president's love of this conspiracy theory? >> i read matt's article and he laid it out fairly the two sides of this. there's going to be a point that's going to rock the republicans, which is that the initiation was justified. that's going to be hard for them to work around. however, on the other side there may be information, as matt lays out. you got to be fair. a, your point, we have to read the entire report. we have to look at the context and the nuances, obviously. but b, it's also worth noting, very important, it's a very low threshold to start a criminal investigation.
11:44 am
you see that? they said it was fine. but it's very, very low. so, again, when i see the whole report and i digest it, i'll give you a better opinion. overall i keep the republicans suffered a loss. >> i understand what you're saying. my question is how does -- does this restore some of the credibility back to these -- to the bureau? it's taken a lot of hits. the intelligence community and the fbi are both taking a lot of hits, even doj since donald trump became president. he's gone after them. republicans who say that they don't trust anything that foreign service members have been saying in the hearings will point to this vast conspiracy perpetrated by this deep state and they'll say durham is going to find it. they're waiting for durham's report. >> for me it's personally a great question. the point is to hear those institutions criticized heavily is troublesome for all of us. and then line people who do a great job and those in political
11:45 am
positions. that's a good thing to me. >> let's hope so. doug barnes. >> next up, are the dnc's rules keeping the most diverse candidates from the debate stage? and there are things we wouldn't. ♪ when work is worth it. work is worth it. work can be closer to home... pay more... make us proud. careerbuilder. work can work. find your work at hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information. that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad.
11:46 am
we all want what's best for our parents, so call today. 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. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual.
11:47 am
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. ♪ cologuard: colon cancer and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
11:48 am
11:49 am
we are just 60 days out from the iowa caucus, just 60 days. as our own first read puts it. the contest couldn't be more wide open, which is why 2020 contenders are desperate to make it on the stage. gabbed gabbed are one poll away from qualifying. cory booker met the donor threshold but has not qualified in any of the polls. so far no other candidate comes close to making the cut, at least as far as we know. so many observers are wondering how did the most diverse democratic field in history wind up with a debate stage that could only feature white candidates. joining me now, president of brilliant corners research, cornell belcher. and former democratic congressman and "washington post" columnist, donna edwards.
11:50 am
guys, welcome. polling is part of this scenario. is it fair to use polling as a threshold to get to the debate stage? >> well, it's tough. we need a broader conversation because, look, i'm reading the articles talking about how, you know, senator harris campaign wasn't perfect, we got spilled by barack obama. barack obama was a phenomenon. if you go back before barack obama, there's not a lot of people of color that break through. people o and i think so the problem is -- is more structural. so i don't come here to condemn the -- the process. i come here to, quite franfrank condemn the whole establishment because there are issues that have to do with sexism and racism and structural racism. you have to be a generation type
11:51 am
leader the g way barack obama w and that, to me, is a larger problem. >> what does that say about the democratic party? because the democratic base is female. the democratic base has a number of black voters. a number of minority voters. donna, what can you say about -- about the way democratic voters, as a whole, black, white, brown, female, male, how they view what is an electable candidate? >> well, first of all, let's be really clear. it isn't just the democratic base is female. it is black, female. black women who hold up the base of the democratic party. and i think one of the things that you can see in this election, which is really different than what i've seen in other elections. is that you got a lot of candidates who are intentionally playing to that base. they're intentionally going to that base. and so i think it's -- there's a lot to be divided up among the candidates. but look. as somebody who's run for office. you know, what i think is -- can sometimes be unfair press.
11:52 am
a lot of scrutiny that is related to race and to gender. i think those things are real andos they really contribute to the -- to the problem. and i don't know about changing the rules mid-stream. but we certainly have to look at rules where a candidate so qualified like a kamala harris is not even in the game before the first vote is cast. that is a problem for the democratic party. and i don't thinkth it's one that's gonna be cured by just fixing thee rules of a debate qualification. but looking structurally at what kinds of barriers are keeping billionaires on stage and qualified women off stage. >> you know, you're basically saying part of what cory booker said today. let's play that. >> i'll tell you this. voters willou determine the outcome of this campaign and black, women voters in particular will have a very large impact on our ability to win.have and -- and so i'm just gonna say it plain.
11:53 am
it is a problem that we now have a overall campaign for the 2020 presidency that has more billionaires in it than black people. this is not about one candidate. it is about the diverse coalition that is necessary to beat donald trump. >> can you get that diverse coalition? the coalition you need to beat donald trump without having a kamala harris? without having a cory booker? without having a diverse candidate themselves on the ticket? can you do that, donna? >> i don't -- i mean, look. i don't think it's impossible. for example, i look at elizabeth warren. and elizabeth warren went from 0% among black voters in early spring. to now,in in the sort of low to mid-teens, whatever that number is. so i think it's possible to do but it actually means having policies and really speaking to those -- to those r issues. and going to those voters and asking for their vote. and not just expecting it. i mean, voters, black voters,
11:54 am
are tired of people just showing upti in their churches and goin to black history month events. and m then not doing and delivering on the things that are important to our communities. and that's the expectation for 2020. and for the person who's going to get the nomination and win the election in november. >> i want -- i want to just address electability. because right now, joe biden is running on electability. it's what a lot of voters will say. joe biden seems like the most electable person. and just -- and not to say that this is joe biden. but to citeis two articles about -- about implicit bias. here's a "new york times" article on men and leadership. a series of images emerge from a simple prompt drawn effective leader. tina, professor of organizational behavior, fellna upon the exerciseav accidentall while leading a workshop full of executives who did not speak much english. since then, it's been adopted by organizational psychologists across the world. in terms of gender, the results are almost always theth same. both men and women almost always draw men.
11:55 am
and then when you look at implicit bias. across four studies. this is another thing. we found evidence for an implicit pro-white leadership bias thathi helps explain the under-representation ofex ethni minorities in leadership positions. so there's -- there's a study on implicit bias. there's that "new york times" article about the study asks you to draw a leader and you draw a man. does this problem that is just rooted in this society, rooted in our culture right now, cornell? >> well, that -- that's the point that i was -- i swas makig more broadly. look. what's happening on the debate stage is really a microcosm of what's happening in broader america. go h to the top sort of corpora boards in this country. and -- >> white men. >> right. exactly. you don't see a lot of diversity there. so what you see happen right now is -- is -- is a structural problem that -- that's part of america. like we do have structural racism in this country. sexism is a real thing.
11:56 am
we've got to keep trying to sort of chip away at that. and i thinko it's important tha especially for the democratic party who is so dependent on that -- on diversity. so dependent on -- on people of color. we have to do o a better job of- of tackling structural racism and structural bias throughout the progressive community. in order to win. and the other part about this is, yes. i r mean, if -- if -- if democrs win this time around, it's because they rebuilt the obama coalition, which was largely a minority coalition. >> i want to have this conversation in longer form again soon, guys. cornell belcher and former congresswoman donnad edwards. thank you so much for joining us and taking this on. wei we t appreciate it. what happens when hilary clinton stopping being polite and starts getting real? good real world piece. one more thing is next. g real good real world piece. one more thing is next we made usaa insurance for members like martin.
11:57 am
an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa
11:58 am
we're oscar mayer deli fresh your very first sandwich,m... your mammoth masterpiece. and...whatever this was. because we make our meat with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. make every sandwich count with oscar mayer deli fresh. 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.
11:59 am
one more thing before we go. after losing to donald trump in 2016, you can't help but wonder what exactly was going through hilary clinton's head as she sat there and watched him become the 45th president? yesterday, she told howard stern the unfiltered version of what was happening. >> hardest days of my life to be honest. bill and i are sitting with george and laura bush. and then he started on that speech, which was so bizarre. and then that carnage in the street and the dark dystopian vision. i was sitting there like just
12:00 pm
wow. couldn't believe and george w. bush says to me, well, that was some weird [ bleep ]. >> wow. >> speaking of weird blank, ali velshi's here. >> oh, my god. i hadn't heard that. that was an excellent transition. >> that was a funny thing i just said. >> that was a funny thing you just said. you say funny things every day, my friend. and smart things. and i thought that conversation about implicit bias when you said we need to have this conversation longer and more often. >> can you believe that "new york times" study or the article about the study where you're asked to draw a leader and everyone draws a man. >> yeah. and that's -- we -- we all have it. and i think that's what we have to understand. we all do this ourselves. some of us less than others. but you -- it's -- it can be unlearned. but it takes work and effort and time. and in the cases of certain organizations, money t, to unlen it. thank you for doing that, my friend. it is thursday december 5th. sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a hea


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on