tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC December 5, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
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 heart full of love for america today, i am asking our chairman to proceed
with articles of impeachment. with these historic words from speaker nancy pelosi, the house judiciary committee will move forward and officially begin drafting articles of impeachment against president donald j. trump. next monday, that committee will hear from both democratic and republican counsel on evidence. it is a crucial final step in the making of the case of whether the 45th president of the united states committed offenses worthy of removal from office. >> in america, no one is above the law. the facts are uncontested. the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit at the expense of our national security, our . our democracy is what is at stake. the president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. >> now, no definitive timeline has been set. congress is scheduled to be in session until the week before
christmas. it'll be the third time in american history that the house passes articles of impeachment against a sitting president. joining me now from capitol hill with the latest. msnbc's garrett haake. again, garrett, nothing unexpected has happened so far. but there was something. this morning at 9:00 a.m., when nancy pelosi came out and says, you've got the green light. draft the articles of impeachment. >> yeah. that's right. and the relevant committees are moving pretty quickly to follow the speaker's instruction. we know after her press conference this morning, pelosi met with the committee chairman from the relevant committees who will be working on this. and democrats on the judiciary committee have been told to go ahead and stick around this weekend to prepare for that monday hearing. monday hearing like this is sort of unusual in the first place. typically, congress doesn't really get up and running until tuesday, wednesday, thursday. but you can tell now that democrats are trying to move pretty quickly here. one of the debates that's still outstanding is what do they do with the information that came out during the mueller report? i've heard from democrats across the spectrum here.
some believe that that should be set aside and the articles of impeachment that get drafted should focus very narrowly on ukraine. nancy pelosi wouldn't answer my question about that this morning. but democrats i talked to on the judiciary committee all want to see the mueller information included. but the specific information about obstruction, they think the president's obstruction of the mueller investigation establishes a pattern that supports the obstruction they see here on the ukraine investigation. you won't be surprised to know republicans have a slightly different view of that obstruction. i asked kevin mccarthy about that this morning. here's what he had to say. >> why didn't the speaker, if she wanted to go through impeachment and she's not going to stick to her own criteria, why wouldn't she create a fair process? why wouldn't she create the same process that bill clinton or richard nixon had? because it didn't fit their timeline. in that letter, the president said he would comply if he had a fair process. history will look back today and it'll be a sad day.
we hope that, at any time, whoever has this power in this country, that they never repeat what alexander warned us would come. and that this day will never happen again in america. >> so, ali, in the face of this, republicans are clearly digging in here. i am not a lawyer but i do know enough to know that the president's compliance or lack thereof for these investigations, it's not relevant whether or not he thinks it's fair. i mean, this is a question of legally-authorized subpoenas. democrats feel like almost in some cases, the obstruction case is more clear cut than the case about ukraine just because of the blanket refusing by the white house to participate at any level with this investigation. including with fully-authorized congressional subpoenas for information. >> you're way too clear to be a lawyer, my friend. garrett haake on capitol hill for us. now, having just said that, i'm about to introduce a lawyer. how broad should these articles of impeachment go? i want to bring in attorney michael conway who's very clear, as well. michael served as counsel to the
house judiciary committee during the impeachment of president nixon. so he knows of what he speaks. i want to pick up what -- where -- where garrett just left off. there's garrett, in case anybody was missing him. i want to pick up right where he left off, michael. that the obstruction case, to some people, seems clearer than the case about quid pro quo with ukraine. >> well, you're absolutely right. you know, the constitution uses the word sole power twice. it says that the house has the sole power of impeachment and the senate has the sole power to try the impeachment charge. here, the president has interfered with the impeachment process that the constitution says congress has the sole power to engage in. he doesn't get to decide what's relevant. and he's withheld it in a broadway, much broader and a more brazen way than richard nixon did. richard nixon did send people up to testify to the judiciary committee. albeit, some of them lied under oath. but he didn't produce any documents to our committee until the u.s. supreme court ordered him to turn over the tapes to the special prosecutor and we
got it. here, president trump has said you don't even have to show up. there's no basis in the law, in our history, for that kind of a broad claim of privilege. and a couple of federal judges have already knocked it down. >> michael, you're off and on with our friend liz holtzman. she's written an op-ed in "the washington post." i want to read from her about how she says that the impeachment inquiry can deal with the missing -- the eyewitnesses who didn't show up. the people who didn't accept the invitation. said focusing only on ukraine suggests that trump's impeachable offenses are limited to this one matter. that approach might make it too easy for the senate and the public to say in effect that as it is, it doesn't warrant removing the president from office. the narrow focus, meaning on the ukraine issue, minimizes the fact that trump's abuses are staggering and include lining his pockets by ignoring the emoluments clause and flouting the rule of law in general. so liz is making the point that others are making. that at least some components of what we learned from the mueller report should be included in
this. so as to let people know it's not just this. it's -- it's a lot of other stuff. >> sure. it absolutely undercuts the republican argument this is just one phone call. this is just one thing. although, the house intelligence committee report shows it's a long-lasting conspiracy. i completely agree with liz, who was obviously a member of the committee that i was a lawyer for. back at the time, we treated the obstruction of justice two ways. we treated it as part of an obstruction of justice claim. that was article one. but we also treated it as a separate article of defying congress. one thing it allowed us to do. and there were five articles of impeachment that the house judiciary committee actually voted on. and there were other topics that we investigated and never came to an official vote. and two of those were voted down. there was an article about the secret bombing of cambodia. some of the democratic members pressed very hard and there was an article that was a combined article about the nixon filed a false tax return, and he did. and that he had the emoluments
clause violation. although, on a much more modest scale than president trump did. what that did was two things. one, it highlighted those issues. and secondly, it gave members a chance to say i voted on this article but i voted against this article. and i think it showed a moderation of both democrats and republican members at that time. >> michael, always good to see you. thank you very much for being with us to help us through this. michael conway is an attorney who served as counsel to the house judiciary committee during the impeachment inquiry of president richard nixon. as we enter this historic phase, my next guest would like us to take a good, hard look at who is defined as a traitor in this country. in an op-ed, republican rick wilson argues that trump has devalued the term by ascribing it to anyone who criticizes him. and i'm quoting here. which is a shame because america is in the midst of a treason boom right now. and more than a few people in trump's immediate orbit and trump himself richly and actually deserve the title of traitor. the traitors will sit in
congressional hearings on impeachment, knowing the truth about trump's extortion racket and of the grubby, sleazy plan trump sent gordon sondland, rudy giuliani, et al. to carry out and tell lie after lie. the bigger, the better. the traitors are the ones who, when this is all done and dusted, will sit in the dock at some new nuremberg trial and claim their innocence of the worst charges and penalties. not by claiming their actions were just following orders but they were just following trump. rick wilson is the author of that. he joins me now. he's the author, as well of running against the devil, a plot to save america from trump and democrats from themselves. it's a book that will be out in january. rick, these are very, very strong words. you are implicating -- i don't know -- republicans in general? or congressional republicans who are the ones making the decision on this? >> well, look. trump has an entire class of enablers around him. and i started writing this
article because i -- i noted that he is sort of devalued the word traitor by -- by naming americans who clearly are not as people who had betrayed the country or betrayed him. and as i thought about it more, this class of people that -- that he has built around him to support him no matter what he does, no matter what his criminality is. no matter what his -- what his schemes are. no matter what unconstitutional thing he does. they will defend him to the last breath. i just found it enormously contradictory to the oath they swore to the office. congressional republicans are particularly, you know, egree s egregious examples of this breed. >> let me read you something from "plit kwolitico" about the never mind not going along with impeachment. in the response we saw the other day from the gop to the intelligence committee report even before it was put out. there wasn't even any acknowledgment that anything possibly wrong was done. "politico" rights even some republicans who have expressed concerns about trump's actions say they've given little thought to a rebuke that falls short of
impeachment. that anti-pathy for even a symbolic reprimand of trump underscores how the president has transformed the republican party. why is the entire republican establishment worried about donald trump, a man who takes anything you say as a potential slight, being slighted by elected representatives? >> it's a combination of two big things. one is fear of trump. fear of his social media. they know they're going to get death threats. their lives are going to fall apart rather quickly. other part of it is opportunism where they let trump be this lightning rod and think they're going to accomplish some of these ideological goals they have even if they're increasingly possible to do. but mostly, it's fear of trump. this cult-like rationalization
is completely wrong and they all know it. but none of them want to be the first guy to stop clapping at the saddam rally. they know how that ends for people. and they recognize he is a spiteful, venal man. he's got a very short temper and he is a petty and vengeful person and they don't want to be the first ones to cross him. >> you've made this point before with me and jennifer reuben that losing your seat is not like being condemned to solitairy confinement. if you go down honorably because you stand up for your principles, whatever party you belong to. all that happens is you're not a senator or you're not a congressman. >> you know, but that's the problem here. with a lot of these guys is they've stopped believing in anything except this -- this momentary power they hold by having that seat. look. some of them feel a little itching once in a while or a little pain. that's their soul trying to reenter their body and tell them
they're doing the wrong thing. but for the most part, they -- they like what trump gives them, which is a sense of complete irresponsibility. they don't have to do the right thing. they've -- they feel like they've got this cover, this excuse. that, oh, you know, i'm gonna follow trump over the cliff into the ocean. drown, sink to the bottom. it doesn't matter because i'm going to be a good soldier. you know, the just following orders defense is a really terrible one, historically speaking. and that doesn't just involve, you know, germany. just following orders defense is one that over and over again leads to things that are -- that leads to terrible outcomes in societies. and these guys, you know, they -- they don't have to be responsible in their minds because trump lets them do it. >> good to see you. thank you for being with us. rick wilson. he's got his new book coming out in january. the book is called "running against the devil." coming up, the trump administration tightens the work requirements for some food stamp recipients. a change that will eliminate benefits for more than half a
million americans. plus, 2020 democratic presidential candidate mayor pete buttigieg sits down with our own vaughn hillyard. among the topics they covered, the importance of outreach on the campaign trail. >> part of the work of a campaign is to reach out to all different kinds of communities in the united states. to share our plans but also to take in a sense of what is affecting people. le my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. vo: take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name. vo: visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555. ♪needs somebody ♪everybody needs somebody to love♪
yesterday, the trump administration finalized new work requirements for food stamp recipients that could cost nearly 700,000 americans their benefits. under the current rules for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, that's what food stamps are called. snap program. most unemployed, childless adults between 18 and 49 years old are limited to three months of benefits over a three-year period unless they work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a qualifying job training program. however, states could seek temporary wavers from that time limit for areas with high unemployment. but the new rule announced by the u.s. agriculture department, which administers snap, would only allow states to seek waivers for areas with an unemployment rate of 6% or higher. the national unemployment rate is below 4% right now. usda says about 688,000 people would lose access to food stamps as a result of the change. and the federal government would save $5.5 billion over five
years. according to the agriculture department, at least 40 million americans were enrolled in snap in 2018. joining me to take a closer look at the impact of this move is stacey dean. she's the vice president for food assistance policy at the center on budget and policy priorities. and because you're with the center on budget and policy priorities, i can broaden this out just for a second. to say people who follow the federal budget understand that the united states has a deficit and a debt that is growing. and -- and we have grown that on the backs of tax cuts to -- to people who make a lot of money and to corporations. but we're prepared to save $5.5 billion on people who have a net income of about 2 and a half thousand dollars. you know, way below the poverty line. this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of saving the federal bundget money. >> i think that frame is the right place to start. we do need to get our fiscal house in order. but it's not by taking food away from some of the most destitute people in our country. i agree with you.
i would start with revenues in maybe some other parts of the budget where there's room to save without increasing poverty and hunger. >> yeah because this is a problem. we're the richest country in the world but we have 40 million people who are food insecure. that's remarkable number. they don't really know where the next meal is going to come from. they may get food. they may get it from some assistance program or -- or a shelter or a food pantry. but the fact is, that's what america is. let's just talk about the people who are most affected by this change. it doesn't sound entirely unreasonable that people who can work should work. so what's the problem with this change that is gonna kick 700,000 people off this program? >> well, this is a group of people who are unemployed. they're not non-workers. they are, in fact, often in and out of the labor force. the jobs that they have are unstable. don't offer consistently 20 hours a week. so part of the problem is that the job market that's available to them doesn't match the rule that the administration wants to
hold them to. which is steadily at 20 hours a week. but when you look at the people in this -- this group. and it is -- it is a diverse group. but we -- it includes homeless individuals, folks struggling with chronic health conditions. it can be people in rural areas with no transportation. all of these folks are still being held to a standard of 20 hours a week of steady work. which just can be very difficult for them to sustain continuously. >> what is -- in theory, if you were supporting this idea, you'd say, all right. these 688,000 people should meet the standard. they'll meet the standard. they'll earn money. they'll get off the government payrolls because they -- they weren't working because we were giving them this assistance. this assistance was a disincentive for them to work. tell me how that works. are 688,000 people likely to end up on the payrolls now because we're doing this? >> well, according to usda's estimate, 688,000 people are going to lose food assistance because they are unable to find
a job. and, you know, instead of looking for work, they're going to have to be looking for food. that's just not the best approach to re-employing this group of folks. >> stacey, there's a lot to talk about. lot of detail and we thank you for joining us to give us just a bit of it. stacey dean is the director of food assistance policy at the center on budget and policy priorities. all right. coming up, 2020 democratic presidential candidate deval patrick. after joining an already-packed field of white house hopefuls, just last month. how does he plan to separate himself from the crowd? and resonate with enough voters to make a debate stage? you're watching msnbc. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. man: that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we'd like you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. the chevy family!
get the chevy employee discount for everyone today. but at fidelity, value is more than just talk. we offer commission-free online u.s. stock and etf trades. and, when you open a new fidelity brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate -- that's 21 times more than schwab's. plus, fidelity's leading price improvement on trades saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars last year. that's why fidelity continues to lead the industry in value while our competition continues to talk. ♪ talk fidelity. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death.
oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care
the race for the democratic presidential nomination is heating up with just 60 days to go until the iowa caucus. that group includes two people who have jumped into the race just last month. former new york city mayor mike bloomberg and former massachusetts governor deval patrick. deval patrick joins me now. thank you for being with us. >> nice to be with you. thanks for having me, ali. >> we were looking at the last national poll from quinnipiac. you're not registering on that poll. and i want to show the viewers the poll because it was taken between november 21st and 25th. it's got a few people on there who have since dropped out. kamala harris. but you're late into the game and you're starting with very little national voter recognition.
what are you doing about this? >> well, i'm on your show. you're helping. and i thank you for that. but listen. we've got to be about connecting with voters everywhere. not just in the early states. although, that is our first primary -- our first primary concern. but reaching out to people and making the campaign about them and not about me. and that means listening to them. hearing what their concerns are. making sure that our policy positions are fully understood. and that folks can contribute in ways that refine and improve those policy choices. >> let's talk about those policy choices. it's not clear. we have your history as the governor. so we know where you stand on some things. but you have not sort of emulated elizabeth warren or amy klobuchar or kamala harris in terms of a big stack of policy or other candidates who have a lot of policy proposals that are out there and clear. so when will we start to see what deval patrick stands for as presidential contender? >> so we'll start in the next several weeks to roll out a
series of policy agendas. and they are organized as agenda, ali, because frankly, most people live their lives not in policy silos. but in interconnecting or around the interconnecting policy choices. so you'll see an opportunity agenda, which is about how we grow our economy out to the middle and the marginalized and not just up to the well-connected. you'll see a reform agenda that offers our ideas about some of the issues that folks have been thinking about and talking about. healthcare reform. immigration reform. criminal justice reform, for example. you'll see a democracy agenda, which is about how we restore access to our democracy so it functions. these issues of voter suppression and -- and purging of the amount of money. much of it dark. in our elections today. all the ways in which we've twisted and turned, gerrymandering, twisted and turned our system so that it is harder for people to actually drive democratic outcomes. and then a foreign policy
agenda, as well. about america's role going forward in an increasingly interconnected world. >> who needs deval patrick? in a -- in a full race where you waited so long and people a year ago thought i'm with deval patrick. i want him to get in. and you said no then. clearly, you believe there is a need for deval patrick on this race. who are the voters who you think are gonna look at you, listen to your policy proposals, and look at your resume and your experience and say this is the guy i'm gonna cast my ballot for? >> well, let me say two things first of all in response to your question. i was ready to go about a year ago, ali. and really two or three weeks before -- before thanksgiving, i was ready to step out. and we learned just on the eve that my wife had been diagnosed with uterine cancer. and so we stepped back. that's the sort of thing that brings your -- your feet right back down to earth. i am so relieved to say that when we celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary in may, she is cancer free. >> that's amazing.
>> it is. it is. incredible blessing. she got great care and she continues to be strong. and is very enthusiastic about my coming in. in fact, i continue to get encouragement about people -- from people about coming in from both folks i knew and total strangers that out of the blue said there's something missing in the field. so that brings me to the question you asked. you know, my range of life and work experience in and out of the private sector here in the united states and overseas provides me with experience solving a lot of problems. a lot of different kinds of problems. with a lot of different kinds of people. and one of the things i've learned is that if you want big change that lasts, you've got to bring other people in. so you ask about the voters i'm -- i'm interested in. i'm interested in everybody. everywhere. the people who feel left out and left back. the people who participate all the time and never do. and everyone in between. and i want to be clear that in my experience as governor, i
understood i was not gonna get a unanimous vote. but when i got the job, i understood my responsibilities to be about everyone everywhere and we have not had that kind of leadership from our incumbent president. and that's the kind of leadership i'll bring. >> governor, when you were -- when you were the governor of massachusetts, you implemented the healthcare law that was brought in by mitt romney. remember when mitt romney was all about universal healthcare or -- or, you know, some sort of healthcare plan that everybody take part in. >> yes. >> you signed a bill that capped a growth in healthcare cost. you expanded mandatory coverage of inpatient drug addiction. you increased the minimum wage. you signed a gun safety bill. what have you learned from that? that's different from the america that a president governs today, right? we are -- we are way more divided as a country than the massachusetts over which you governed was. how do you translate what you did well then into what you can do well as the president of the united states in a very different, polarized world?
>> we are a divided country. and -- and -- and we have, sadly, leaders who seem to wake up every day looking for other ways to, further ways to divide us. and that has got to end. you know, there's a funny assumption about our beloved massachusetts. which is that it is reliably blue. when, in fact, there are more unenrolled independents in massachusetts than there are registered democrats and registered republicans combined. the reason healthcare worked, just as an example, is that we had a republican governor. we had a democratic legislature. we had business people, poli policymakers, healthcare providers, patient advocates. who came to the table to invent this reform. and then they stuck together to refine it because we continued to learn as we went. and that's been true of the ethics reform. of the pension reform. of the transportation reform. we are responsible for. it was -- it was true of how we
built an innovation economy, which became a global powerhouse and helped lift us through life sciences and clean energy. out of recession faster than most other states. it was asking people to come to the table. in some respects, the greatest power a governor has, and maybe a president, and the convening power. and if you are brave enough and self-confident enough to listen to people who may have different ideas about how you accomplish objectives, then i think you get change that lasts. >> deval patrick. thank you for joining me. deval patrick is a 2020 democratic presidential candidate. he is the former governor of massachusetts. coming up, the story of a man evicted from a california nursing home while recovering from surgery. loaded into a van during the night and left on los angeles's skid row without his life-saving insulin. his story is not unique. he's one of more than 1,000 low-income, disabled, or elderly residents nursing homes evict
illegally each year. plus, the challenge house democrats are facing when it comes to making the legal case for the impeachment of president trump. you are watching msnbc. achment t trump. you are watching msnbc xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. 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. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief.
ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". 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. [upbeat music] no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics (bubbles popping) and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine
wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. 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. as the debate for the future of america's healthcare system wages on, we are taking a closer look at nursing homes that are illegally evicting elderly and disabled residents who can't afford to pay. nbc's left field followed the challenges facing these patients and the financial pressures it adds to them and their families. >> on any given day, 1.4 million
americans are living in a nursing home. but experts say that every year, thousands are evicted against their wishes. sometimes illegally because they're low income and on state assistance. >> if you're looking for a class of people to -- to bully around and -- and to -- and to violate their rights. this is probably the best group you could pick, right? they're older. they're medically fragile. they're coming off of a significant medical condition that required a hospitalization. and now, a lot of rehabilitation. underresourced. overwhelmed. poorly-informed about what their rights are. >> because i'm a diabetic, i got an open sore on the bottom of my foot. at one point because it wouldn't heal properly, it got infected. they sent me into emergency surgery and they amputated a couple of my toes and part of the top of my foot.
>> ronald, who was 51 and homeless, got rehab at the nursing home where he lived for more than a year. then one night, around 10:00 p.m., he says an administrator came into his room. >> big smile on their face. saying we're kicking you out. >> they smiled? >> yeah. and they just bundled me into a van and just dropped me off here on the sidewalk. >> a later report by the state of california said that ronald was left on the sidewalk on skid row and was out of insulin, which he needs for diabetes. the report said he could have died and that his eviction was illegal. the avalon villa care center, through its lawyers, told nbc news it strongly disputes that it has inappropriately discharged any patients. the homeless shelter where ronald's living now says it's seen cases like this. experts even have a term for it. reside resident dumping. this goes back to how nursing homes in america are paid for. medicare for people over 65 and
medicaid for low-income people both cover nursing home stays. but they subsidize really different amounts. medicare pays way more. but what many people don't realize until it's too late is that medicare only covers short-term rehabilitation. up to 20 days fully paid. after that 20-day mark, a lot of people struggle to pay for the support they still need. >> we're definitely seeing an uptick in transfers that seem to be motivated by reimbursement rate as opposed to care needs. >> in certain situations, it is perfectly legal for a nursing home to ask someone to leave. like if a patient's health has improved. but even the federal government's acknowledge in a 2017 memo that some nursing homes are manipulating the rules. pushing out low-income, elderly, and disabled people to make room for more lucrative patients. >> the nursing home industry is a profit-driven industry. they make a lot of money. don't let them fool you.
>> joining me now is katy. she spent several months following the stories of these patients and their families. how common is it? >> that's the big question. there's not great data on this. what we know is that in 2017, long-term care received more than 10,000 complaints about transfers and evictions. now, that's probably just a tiny fraction of total cases. a lot of people don't know that they have a right to contest an eviction. or they don't know that something illegally has been done to them. but i think the important thing to remember here is not every case is as dramatic as a person being literally dumped at the side of the road. a range of low-income elderly and disabled people are affected. so take patients with dementia. a lawyer at the arp foundation told me a lot of nursing homes, some nursing homes, are especially eager to evict dementia patients who are likely to be on medicaid. who are likely to stay in a facility for a long time and need kind of an extra level of care.
a lot of other people, maybe even most of these cases, are normal folks. they've gone into a hospital for, say, a procedure. they've gone into a nursing home to get bit of rehab. everything's going well. but a few weeks later, they're approaching that 20-day mark when medicare's not going to stop paying. maybe they're going to shift to medicaid and boom. they get a letter saying you're all better. time to go home now. so these evictions can happen in really subtle and complicated ways. we've got a whole report up on sort of the different cases and the different ways this can happen. >> people should check it out on nbc.com. thank you, katy. left field producer. her reporting can be seen on nbc news.com. house speaker pelosi gave the judiciary committee its marching orders today. begin drafting articles of impeachment against president trump now. committee member says the president abused his power and betrayed the constitution. she joins me next. you are watching msnbc. joins me. you are watching msnbc because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed
i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. 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. ♪
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 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 humira.com to see proof in action. we witnessed an historic moment on capitol hill today when speaker nancy pelosi announced that the house is moving forward to draft articles of impeachment against president trump. this comes after wednesday's hearing when constitutional scholars testified about the legal aspects of impeachment. so let's take a closer look at some of the issues that they
raised. jeffrey rosen joins me now. he is the president of the national constitution center. he's also a law professor at the george washington university. jeff, thank you for joining us. i want to go through three things that were said by three separate lawyers in these hearings. and get your take on the case that they were making. pamela karlan is a law professor at stanford. she was -- she and jerry nadler were in a discussion about that the president interfering with -- with national security interest and how that conducts danger. let's listen to what she said. >> does the president's conduct endanger that right? >> yes, mr. chairman, it does. >> thank you. and how does it do so? >> the way that it does it is exactly what president washington warned about. by inviting a foreign government to influence our elections, it takes the right away from the american people and it turns that into a right that foreign governments decide to interfere for their own benefit.
>> so that's interesting. she's saying by doing something that is otherwise the right of the american citizen, the american people, to do. that is the legal problem with what the president was doing. >> that's right. and in doing so, professor karlan picked up on themes that professors gerhardt and feldman struck. this is what the framers believe was the core of an impeachable offense. it is an abuse of power, all of them said, to solicit a foreign government to interfere in an election for the president's personal gain. rather than for the public good. and that led michael gerhardt to say if this is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. professor turley's response for the republicans was it could be impeachable if the facts were proved. but there are just not enough facts and we shouldn't impeach on the basis of what he called jazz rather than an iron-clad case. >> let's talk about professor gerhardt. michael gerhardt is a law professor at the university of north carolina. and he was addressing the idea
of whether it is congress's job alone to deal with the matter of impeachment. let's listen. >> the constitution says the house has the sole power to impeach. constitution only uses the word sole twice. once with reference to the house in this area. once with reference to the senate with respect to impeachment trials. sole means sole. >> what -- what question does that answer? >> it answers the question of who gets to define bribery in particular. there was a really interesting and important exchange between professors gerhardt and turley. professor gerhardt said the house, in its sole power to define bribery, can identify the president's conduct even if it didn't rise to the level of illegal crime because he said the framers wanted to prohibit bribery even before it was a federal crime. professor turley's response. it's got to meet the legal definition for a crime in order to be impeachable. and it's ultimately up to the supreme court to decide. and professor gerhardt's response, which i think is
compelling, is that the court can do whatever it likes. but the house alone gets to decide what's impeachable. and in the end, if it chooses the broader definition, then the supreme court is not going to intervene. >> and i want to play because it's such an interesting discussion. i want to play a little bit of what jonathan turley, who is a law professor, as you are, at the george washington university, had to say about this issue. >> you can't accuse a president of bribery. then when some of us note that the supreme court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation, say, well, it's just impeachment. we really don't have to prove the elements. that's a favorite mantra. that is sort of close enough for jazz. well, this isn't improvisational jazz. close enough is not good enough. if you're going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make remove a duly elected president of the united states. >> and there's that jazz
reference you teased. what do you make of his argument? >> i think he is making the strong republican case that if it's not a technical crime, then you can't impeach, and his colleagues on the other side said it doesn't have to be a technical crime. the framers left it up to the house to decide in its sole discretion. >> jeff, it is always great to have you help us analyze these things because it is complex. jeff rosen is the president and ceo of the national constitution center. and, as i said, a professor at the george washington law school. now that we've had a glimpse into some of the legal arguments democrats may compile, what are the next steps? joining me now is democratic congresswoman karen bass from california who serves on the house judiciary committee. so she knows what she's talking about here. i'm going to ask you, congresswoman, good to see you. what are your next steps? >> well, bright and early on monday morning we are going to have a hearing. and that hearing is going to involve a presentation from the intelligence committee about their findings.
so we will be examining the evidence. yesterday we were looking at the constitution, the framers, what they had in mind. but on monday we'll be actually looking at the evidence. and i think we will probably do that for a couple of days, and then we will take it from there. whether we get to writing articles or not, we'll take it one step at a time. >> let's talk about the question, the discussion that is ongoing about whether or not or why or not to include elements from the mueller report into the report. i just want to read you from the "wall street journal," a reporting about representative alyssa slotkin from michigan who said she hadn't decided how to vote on impeachment but would advise a kitchen sink approach that included mueller's findings. what do you think of that and what's your take? >> i know that that's the debate we are going to have. i would agree with her in terms of imposing a kitchen sink approach. the question is whether or not including the obstruction of
justice amounts to that. there is so many examples of wrongdoing from this president. i do think it's really important that we are focused, that it's clear, that it's easiest to understand. so we will have to make the decision, do we just look at abuse of power, do we look at the examples of obstruction of justice and determine it from there? that will be the discussions that will take place next week. >> you heard my conversation i think with jeff rosen -- >> i did. >> talking about professor turley and the case that he was making for the republicans. what did you think of it? >> well, actually i was kind of surprised by the professor. i thought that they would have had a much stronger witness. because part of what he was saying as well is that he wasn't saying that the president shouldn't be impeached. he just said we don't have enough information, and we need to wait. now what is ironic about that, and i know you know this very well, it's the president that's stopping us from having any of the information. so what about obstruction of congress?
i mean, that's something that we are going to have to look at. you remember when ambassador sondland from the e.u. testified a couple of weeks ago. he was testifying from his memory. now he is still an ambassador, but the state department won't allow him to look at any of his notes. so you have the president that doesn't even want former employees to testify before congress. that's why we had to take the whole mcgahn situation to the courts. and then, you know, you have john bolton. well, if he wants to come forward, he could come forward. for whatever reason he is teasing all of us with tweets. maybe it's because he is trying to drive up the amount of money he is going to make for his book. but i feel a tremendous sense of urgency. because the fundamental fence for me is that the mueller report was about the 2016 election. what happened with ukraine is about the 2020 election. and we need to do everything we can to stop the president from intervening in the next presidential election. >> what's your thinking on timing? you said you will take this as
it unfolds, you will start to write the articles of impeachment as you get the necessary information. is there some timeline about doing this before christmas that you're aware of or conscious of? >> we do not have a rigid timeline, but if i had to make the best guess, i would say before the end of the year. the question is whether it's before christmas or after. >> congresswoman karen bass, thank you for joining me. she is a member of the judiciary committee. we are going to be back right after this quick break. you are watching msnbc. tching m♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.
and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
all right. before we go on saturday december the 14th, i am moderating public education forum 2020 "equality and opportunity for all" along with msnbc news education correspondent reheme ellis. you see six people on the screen. we have had a late add. michael bennet who is a senator from colorado and a presidential candidate. he was actually denver's school superintendent from 2005 to 2009. so it'll for an interesting addition. the forum is going to live stream on nbc news now. and we are going to have special coverage on that day. rehema and me in pittsburg for an educational forum. that wraps up the hour for me. i am going to see you right back here tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can listen to this show on
sirius xm. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins right now. ♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. house speaker nancy pelosi announcing today that she has directed the chairman of the house judiciary committee and the other committees investigating the president to begin drafting articles of impeachment for donald trump. pelosi's announcement making it official that barring something extraordinary, donald trump will most likely be impeached in the coming weeks. here's a part of her announcement this morning. >> if we allow a president to be above the law, we do so surely at the peril of our republic. an america no one is above the law. the facts are uncontested. the president abused his power for his owner