tv MTP Daily MSNBC December 26, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PST
now. welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm chris jansing in new york in for chuck todd. while washington is on the holiday break, president trump isn't taking a break from attacking nancy pelosi and the democrats over impeachment. the president took to twitter to call house speaker nancy pelosi crazy and her fellow house democrats hypocrites. and continued to rail about the do-nothing democrats and their bogus impeachment scam today. all of it happening as the senate trial remains in limbo. and as a possible crack is emerging in republican support for the president. and as house judiciary committee lawyers say president trump could be impeached again. it was senator lisa murkowski, a republican from alaska, who called out majority leader mitch mcconnell for vowing to coordinate with the white house on a senate impeachment trial.
>> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. if we are tasked, as the full senate, to -- to do impartial justice under the constitution and the law, to me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense. and so i -- i -- i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that that has further confused the process. >> as we said, the senate trial is in flux as speaker pelosi refuses to send articles of impeachment to the senate until she's sure there will be a fair trial. and leaders mcconnell and schumer are at an impasse over the trial's parameters. but if you think this partisan battle over impeachment is bitter, imagine another
impeachment process waiting in the wings. it is a distinct possibility, at least according to attorneys for the house judiciary committee. who, in a document filed in court monday, contend that additional articles of impeachment could come if testimony from former white house counsel don mcgahn reveals more about the president's behavior. the house is suing to force mcgahn, a key figure in the mueller report, to testify. a federal court judge ruled in the house's favor last month. an appeals court is expected to hear arguments in the case next friday, just three days before the senate returns to capitol hill. for more, i'm joined by my colleague hans nichols, who traveled with the president to south florida. so right now, the latest we've heard from the president. he's blaming impeachment for impacting his ability to deal with foreign leaders. he has been tweeting about impeachment. eight days after he was actually impeached. >> chris, this is an argument we get occasionally from the president. and that is that impeachment isn't just harming him
politically or it's not just harming him personally. but it's harming him in his ability to do his job as commander in chief. it's not always the line we get from the president. normally, the line we get from the president is that impeachment is a total scam. a total hoax. and it's not affecting his ability at all and under his powers under the constitution to conduct foreign policy to run the country. so a slightly different tone from the president. you have to put it into the context of that -- of the interview that we had from senator lisa murkowski where she's clearly signaling that she's upset. now, we don't know how far she'll go, right? this could be a trial balloon for her. this could be an indication to her sending a message to mitch mcconnell that she wants to have a more deliberative, a more open process. or could just be her telling voters that she hasn't made up her mind. we don't know, ultimately, how it's going to affect the trial. in large part, because mcconnell and schumer, as far as we know, are not talking. and that's the conversation that needs to take place so that we can have the contours, the
shape, and the duration of a senate trial. and speaker pelosi, if she decide to send over and she's satisfied, transmit those articles of impeachment to the senate. chris. >> hans nichols, thank you so much for that. with me now, robert tsai, constitutional lieu expert a constitution law expert. noah rothman, msnbc contributor. joel pane is a democratic strategist and former director of paid media for hillary for america. natas that tas natasha joins us as well. let's start with what lisa murkowski said. and she kind of touched off a lot of conversation. look. republicans are saying no big deal. shawn spicer, for example, says oh wow, the idea that politics isn't going ton in washington i crazy. but i wonder, joel, what should we make of her comments? and does it provide an opening potentially for the democrats?
>> i think it demonstrates the senate is a completely different ecosystem and environment for impeachment to live in. and that's because each senator has their own individual powers kind of different than house members. also, the senate itself is a body is different. these members are elected to longer terms. they have different con stitch we stitchconstituencies they are trying to play to back home. and so it's a different calculus that each member has to think about when they're figuring out not only whether or not to support impeachment but how they would support or how they would differ on impeachment. all of those things come into play here. >> and because washington is essentially shut down, it isn't like we could go up and down the halls and try to get reaction from other members of the senate. but we actually had senator john kennedy, republican from louisiana, who happened to be in town for something unrelated. and he was asked about lisa murkowski's comments. less than an hour ago i think this was. here's what he had to say.
>> the senator's entitled to her opinion and senator mcconnell is entitled to his. we all see the world from our own bell tower. >> any uneasiness when it comes to leader mcconnell coordinating with the white house? >> let me say it again. every senator is entitled to his own opinion. i'm about halfway through doing my research on rules of impeachment. and so far, as best i can tell, as to the rules of impeachment, there are very few rules. we have some standing rules in the senate. but they can be amended at any time. the constitution is very terse on the subject. and i -- i dare say that just about every senator will approach this differently. >> and that may be true. but, noah, i was talking to a republican earlier today who suggested that murkowski's comments were kind of a trial balloon for some of these moderate democrats. do you think that it provides an opening for some of them to be put more pressure on mitch
mcconnell, for example, to allow witnesses? >> yeah. it might. but i don't suspect it would alter the ultimate outcome of this trial in the senate. which i think we all agree is all but assured. if you can get a couple senators, some more moderates like senator murkowski or vulnerable members like senators collins and gardener, that might affect whether they call any witnesses and what witnesses they might call. but ultimately, you're getting nowhere near two-thirds. so i generally think that, you know, this is good politics for republicans to appear open. i think a lot more has been made of the comments that mitch mcconnell made. >> so are you suggesting to appear sort of unbiased or more fair or actually trying to be more fair? >> well, no. appearance of being more fair. this is a political process. the jury senate trial analogy breaks down a little bit when you suggest that these people should be completely impartial. this is not a jury. they are not sequestered. they are subject to their constituencies. they are subject to their
political interests. that informs their judgment. the impartial party here is justice roberts. all these other jurors, as it were, are senators with c constituencies for whom they represent. so they are to behave in that manner. and in that sense, it's just like any other day in the senate. >> is that exactly how you see it? i mean, we know how vague, robert, all of this is laid out. so, you know, we have this argument where on one side, you have republicans who are saying, look, let's do it the way we did it back in 1999 with president clinton. where essentially, we laid out the -- the case for and against impeachment. and then we decided whether or not we were going to allow anybody to testify. what guidance do we really have? and what about politics versus actually following the constitution? >> well, i don't think it's quite true that the senators can just practice politics as usual. the last two times that we've been through this as a country,
the senators collectively, and individually, have all said they felt they have had to rise to the historical moment. and so while there is politics here, we still are talking about a process that is kind of a hybrid. both a combination of law but also the politics that everybody is talking about. and so it's not true that they can just simply vote their kind of political baseline without -- without any kind of recourse. the oath that the senators take individually before the proceedings begin, specifically calls upon them to render impartial justice. so i think that's the place where we've got to begin. >> and, natasha, as you well know and this is your area of expertise, national security, that has been a big part of the democrats' argument here, right? that -- that our national security was threatened here. continues to potentially be threatened with the 2020
election. is any of that getting through the noise of washington? the partisanship of washington? are we going to really hear anything different on the senate side than we heard in the house? >> you know, it's really unlikely. especially, because many of the witnesses that the democrats want to testify at this trial, who could speak to potential national security implications or i should say the very real national security implications of what the president did with ukraine. folks like john bolt upoon, for example. mitch mcconnell has already all but squashed that. all but said, look, that's not going to happen. we are going to have a very speedy trial. we are going to acquit the president right away. in that sense, i do think there are some senators who clearly take their oath a little bit more seriously than others. i mean, mitch mcconnell is supposed to be an impartial juror but he's already said that he's been working hand in glove with the white house. he's already said that the outcome of this is -- is all but predetermined and that the senate is going to do its duty. he said that during his speech
last week. but he didn't say exactly what that was. but i think it's pretty clear. they think their duty here is just to move on with a process that they believe was a sham from the very beginning. so i doubt that the national security implications here are going to get much play at the trial. but the moderate democrats, folks like lisa murkowski, susan collins, even mitt romney, they may come out and -- and, you know, ultimately they're supposed to be quiet during the trial. but, you know, during, they may speak to this a bit more. but i do agree with noah that what they're saying now, you know, mitt romney's saying that he hasn't made a final decision on whether or not he would vote to acquit the president, et cetera. that seems to be more like, you know, good politics for them at the moment than an actual, you know, legitimate, genuine sense of wanting to be fair and impartial. >> and even as we're continuing in this now eight-day-long kind of limbo for what the senate is exactly going to do, robert, you have this kind of provocative
possibility that there could be another impeachment. and i want to read from the letter from house counsel doug letter's filing in federal court. he wrote if don mcgahn's testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that president trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the house, the committee will proceed accordingly. including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment. we are in whole new territory here, are we not? >> well, i think that there's -- the best way to think about that statement in the letter to the court is that there are sort of short-term tactical considerations, as well as sort of long-term broader ones. the short-term tactical question is that they're taking a position that allows that case not to be mooted. to try to force yet another judicial tribunal to say that witnesses that the house have been asking for in this inquiry ought to be required to show up and testify.
and also, hand over documents. but the long-term question, the one that i think is very interesting and worth thinking about is that you've got a question of how do you try to restrain a president who thinks he's done nothing wrong? and who has sworn to continue to do exactly the same things that has led him to be investigated now twice and now impeached. and so -- so for some, they've come around to this possible answer, which is to keep open the possibility that he might be impeached later again. if he continues to engage in malfeasance. >> can you even imagine? i mean, i'm thinking about the great article that greg jaffey and greg miller wrote in "the washington post" where they talk about all of this sort of feeding trump ae's belief that is surrounded by subordinates who are disloyal to him. this deep state idea. can you imagine if there was a second set of impeachment articles that were put out there? >> i mean, what i am most afraid
of is that impeachment becomes a moot deterrent on this president because democrats will have perceived it to have backfired in the event that we reach 2020 and he's re-elected. at that point, we reintroduce articles of impeachment. seems like it's a risky political gambit. but also, just this don mcgahn stuff alone demonstrates why impeachment as a process was so fraught and doesn't appear to be going very well for democrats. they argued politically that this was so urgent it needed to take place immediately. don mcgahn, the dem kraocrats h favorable ruling subpoenaing don mcgahn to testify. that was in the appeals court process. when the articles were passed, the court asked for guidance. they said do we even need to talk about this anymore? john bolton wasn't even subpoenaed. i'd love to hear from him. i'd love to hear from mick mulvaney. but i don't think we're going to. as a result, we're going to have an impeachment process that is incomplete, probably fails in the senate. and then we're going to go back for another bite at the apple? i doubt it. >> joe, we're literally out of time and my papers are blowing everywhere.
air conditioning, go away. i got to let you respond to that, though, for a second. >> look. i trust nancy pelosi's political judgment here. that's the person who i'm listening to here. i don't think democrats are going to shotgun another impeachment proceeding. i think that there is all pro-forma stuff you have to put out just to kind of cover your bases. i think the bottom line here is the president's facing a trial in the senate and schumer has done a good job of setting up the goalpost around fair trial. not necessarily the final vote. that's why we've been talking about witnesses and all of those things over the last two weeks and not actually who's going to vote for impeachment. or rather who's going to vote for removal and who's not. >> robert tsai, thank you. noah, joel, natasha, you are all staying with us. ahead, the billionaire candidates taking over the airwaves in an effort to take over the white house. will it work? we'll ask one of them next. democrat tom steyer will join me. and later, no christmas surprise yet. kim jong-un threatened he was sending us a gift. but we're still waiting. what does it say about north korea's nuclear capabilities?
s . they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. [ dramatic music ] why in god's name did you have to choose me? if you don't get there in time. it will be a massacre. we will lose sixteen hundred men. your brother among them. the zip code you're born into can determine your future. your school. your job. your dreams. your problems. (indistinct shouting) but at the y, we create opportunities for everyone, no matter who you are or where you're from. for a better us, donate to your local y today.
here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.
people don't just get by. they get ahead. >> i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. >> i can take on donald trump on the economy and beat him. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. because there is nothing more powerful than the unified voice of the american people. >> welcome back. if you've watched any movies, sports, or even local traffic and weather reports this holiday season, there is a pretty good chance you saw a television ad from one of those two presidential candidates. michael bloomberg and tom steyer. in fact, the two billionaire candidates are dwarfing the entire presidential field when it comes to ad spending. across tv and radio in 2019, bloomberg and steyer amount to more than half the total spending by all democratic presidential candidates. and they spent this money, largely, from their own fortunes
and much less time on the trail than most of their rivals. steyer joined the race in july. bloomberg has only been in the race for about a month. ad spending, of course, does not directly correlate to support in the polls. but it does get your name in the ears of the electorate. joining me now is one of those presidential candidates, tom steyer. good to see you. how are you? >> great, chris. how are you? >> i'm well. so when you got into this race, a couple things people talked about a lot. two strengths. one was your commitment to climate change. the other was the money you have. obviously, now, you've got somebody else in the race who has both of those things and, in fact, is now outspending you. as astronomical as the numbers are. so how has the bloomberg candidacy affected your campaign? >> well, chris, i think he's a completely different person than me. i mean, one of the things i've said from the beginning is i suggested a wealth tax over a year ago. and i said that if anybody wants to lead the democratic party
who's as successful and rich as mike bloomberg or me, that person has to embrace a wealth tax as a symbol of the -- of wanting to undo the inequity in income and money in our society. and obviously, that's something where he hasn't gone along. i mean, we have very, very different messages in terms of what we stand for. for democratic primary voters. very different histories. >> do you worry you'll get lumped in and even by the folks you're running against into this just sort of billionaires who want to buy their way into the debates? billionaires who want to buy their way into the presidency. >> well, mike bloomberg isn't even trying to get into the debate so i'm not worrying about that. look. the way i see this, chris, is very simple. i've spent ten years as an outsider taking on the corporations who i think have bought our democracy and bought the government in washington, d.c. that's really different from everybody in the race, including mike bloomberg. i have a long history of taking on oil companies and tobacco
companies and utilities and drug companies. and beating them. that is a very different message and a very different history from mike. but it's a very different history from everybody else on that debate stage, too. >> so what do you say to folks, tom, who are concerned about the whole role of money period? look, this has been a conversation the democrats have been having for a long time. long before you decided to get into this race. but does it concern you, the kinds -- the kind of money that we're talking about? >> look. i am for public financing of elections. but i think the ultimate thing, the only thing, that really matters here, chris, is do you have a message that is different, important, and that resonates with the american people? and do they trust you to actually bring about what you're talking about? i think, ultimately, that is the only thing that matters for anybody in this race. mike bloomberg, me, anybody on that debate stage. the question is, what do you
stand for? and does anybody really care? >> talk to me about who you're speaking to. and i'm thinking, for example, after amy klobuchar had a great debate. she went on a bus tour through iowa. she's hit most of the counties, i think on the bus tour, 27 different counties in iowa. according to the des moines register candidate tracker, you made just nine appearances in iowa in december. 12 in november. what would you say to somebody who's questioning whether or not you're really down in the trenches and doing what you need to do to run for president? >> chris, i can tell you my schedule. which is dominated by the four early primary states. which is all day, every day. so if anybody's worried about whether i am out there campaigning, the answer is absolutely. you know, i got two days off for -- >> you spent more money in the first four states. even though, overall, mike bloomberg has spent more money. you have spent more than anyone else. you're number one in iowa. number one in new hampshire. number one in nevada.
number one in south carolina. what are you showing for your money and time? >> look. what i see in the polls, and you can look at the morning consult polls, which came out two weeks ago. but every week, i've done better. and i'm somewhere between fifth and second in those states according to the last polls i've seen. so it's one of those things. honestly, i view this race, chris, as almost completely fluid at this point. there are probably two-thirds of the primary voters, democratic primary voters, who aren't sure who they're going to vote for. >> you're right about that. so how do you close? in the next 30 plus days, i think we're 32, 34, 36 days away from the -- the iowa caucus, for example. what's your closing strategy? >> well, i think there are three things i'd say. two of which have been mentioned. one is, look, i'm the person who is saying this government is broken. and i've spent ten years fighting those corporations and beating them who have bought the government. two, i am the person who's the strongest on climate, by far,
who said he would make it his number one priority. i'm the only person to make it his or her number one priority. and the third is this. you can look at the polls, as well, and see that mr. trump is doing better. he's an unconventional candidate. i don't think that conventional economic responses from inside the beltway people are going to work. it didn't work in 2016. and i think if we're going to take mr. trump down in 2020, it's going to be someone who can go head to head with him on the economy because that's all he's running on and show that he doesn't know what he's talking about. that he's a fake. and that he's a terrible steward of the american economy. that he's hurting the american people. and i think that's got to be somebody like me with 30 years of business experience, who can really show what a fake he is. >> tom steyer. good to have you on the program. happy holidays. thank you. >> chris. happy holidays to you. thank you for having me. >> still ahead, taking revenge on russia. after putin meddled in the 2016 election, how america is preparing to fight back in 2020.
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. we all want what's best for our parents, so call today. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring.
don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.
welcome back. the u.s. intelligence community concluded with high confidence that russia interfered in the 2016 election. and less than a year ahead of election day 2020, u.s. officials are reportedly working on a response if russia does it again. "the washington post" reports that u.s. cybercommand is developing information warfare tactics that would target senior russian officials and oligarchs if moscow attempted to meddle in the upcoming elections.
according to "the post" the idea would be to show that the target's sensitive personal data could be hit if interference did not stop. though, officials declined to be more specific. still with us for more on all things 2020, noah, joel, natasha. this is definitely in your wheelhouse, natasha. so what are you hearing about how concerned u.s. government officials are? and how ready they are if, indeed, they see signs of more 2020 interference like they saw in 2016? >> yeah. so this continues to be a huge concern across the government. and there is a lot of interagency partnerships happening to try to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again in 2020. there was a lot of concern after 2016 that there wouldn't be enough of a robust response because of the president's lack of interest in really combatting the threat from foreign interference. he said just a few months ago that he would, you know, take foreign opposition research from a foreign country, like norway,
is the example he used, if it was interesting enough. so this is something that the -- the federal government really has had to do on its own. really without any leadership from the president. but this is significant because they're building upon what they did in 2018 before the midterms, which is they sent out alerts, text messages, pop-ups to these russian trolls that were spreading disinformation online. saying we know what you're doing. cut it out. we know all this personal information about you. and when that didn't work, when the trolls continued to do their work, they actually knocked their servers offline. so that was an escalation of cyberoffense that really had not been used in the past. so it is definitely a positive step forward. of course, the risk with the offense of cyberoperations is that they can escalate and they can kind of spiral out of control. but i think they're trying to keep this very contained now. very targeted responses. very targeted to senior russian officials so that it does not escalate to the point where
russia might feel compelled to take a retaliatory step in response. >> but it's not just a lack of leadership by the president, right, guys? i mean, we have actually the exact opposite. i mean, this is a president, as "the washington post" reported back in september 27th who told two senior russian officials in a 2017 oval office meeting that he was unconcerned about moscow's interference in the 2016 u.s. presidential election because the united states did the same in other countries. this is somebody who has put forth a debunked theory that it was actually ukraine and not russia that -- >> chris, i think chaos and destabilization are kind of a -- a hallmark of donald trump's strategies. and if you think about it, this fits into the larger narrative of who he is and how he leads as a president. he has led by questioning media, questioning every institution that people in the country, for years and decades and since, frankly, the beginning of the country have relied upon. where it's the media. whether it's members of congress.
whether it's the quote/unquote deep state. right? law enforcement. authority. so why wouldn't you question your vote? why wouldn't you question the electoral system? and why doesn't that support donald trump? i think donald trump wins when people don't believe in the electoral system because more than the actual impact that russians or whomever are having, it's the psychological impact. i think that's something that's hard to compute. it's hard for us to kind of tell how people feel about whether or not their vote is secure. >> well, in fact, he did say, we welcome foreign interference, foreign information. let's remind folks what he told george stephanopoulos in an interview. take a listen. >> if somebody called from a country, norway, we have information on your opponent. oh. i think i'd want to hear it. >> you'd want that kind of interference in our elections? >> it's not an interference. they have information. i think i'd take it. if i thought there was something wrong, i'd go maybe to the fbi. >> so you got this whole group of officials who are trying to be ready in the case of
interference. but a president who's saying bring it on. >> yeah. and the president's public statements with regard to russia have diverged from the administration's policy for some time now. nevertheless, the president himself -- >> can we just stop for a minute and listen to what we're saying? we're saying that the president's policy is different than the path that his administration is going down. >> yeah. i mean, it's certainly discouraging to hear the president be so flag rant arant dismissive of a genuine threat to national security. i'm not concerned whether or not he would pull the trigger on some sort of retaliatory response from russia. i'm concerned they would serve as a sort of deterrent. these have the capacity to escalate into responses and we have very little evidence that suggests regimes' behaviors are changed as a result of these cyberactivities. we've been doing them for some time, versus iran, for example, and we've seen very little evidence it's deteriorated aggression brought. that is my chief concern that
this stops being an exercise in information warfare and starts being something a lot more real. >> just to pick up on chris's point, what the president says -- when the president says something, it is the policy. i don't want to hear that the policy of people like t-- he ses the policy. if he says we don't believe these things are happening, that is the official position of the united states government. that needs to be said over and over again. >> if you were to only listen to the president's statements to putin, it would make no sense we expel more diplomats than we had in the last administration. executed hostile military reactions against russian mercenary forces in syria under this president. there is a cognitive dissonance here that you can't ignore in order to maintain a full picture of the president. >> yeah. part of that full picture, natasha, is going to be and we don't know like what exactly would it take to trigger this
plan that they're coming up with? and what exactly would it look like? they've said generically, for example, that they could let them know that they would target their personal information. but the specifics are not there. >> right. and i think that's on purpose, right? i think that u.s. officials, obviously, really want to know or want to let the russians know that they can do this. that they have these capabilities. that they can knock their servers offline. that they can target the individual trolls. that they can target senior russian officials. vladimir putin's inner circle. but they don't necessarily want to tell them exactly what they might do in response to the russian spread of disinformation in order to sow chaos. you know, planning protests and events on facebook. pitting one group against another like they did in 2016. there are a lot of ways that the russians and the chinese and the iranians can try to destabilize american democracy in the lead-up to a very, very obviously polarized election. but i think, you know, it is -- there is a reason why these
cyberoffensive operations have been used scarcely or even not at all in the past. it's because the obama administration, under the obama administration, there really was no appetite for this because they were -- obama was worried about how this might escalate. so it remains to be seen what it would take for cybercommand and the nsa to actually pull the trigger on this kind of operation. but we saw them do it in 2018 and it wasn't nearly as aggressive as an operation as it was in 2016. >> natasha, joel, noah. great to have all of you here today. thank you all. ahead, north korea's christmas surprise never came. but america remains on alert. the increasing concern over what pyongang is plotting next. unity of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. from packaging tape... to tape that can bond materials
to buildings... and planes. one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. at 3m, we are solving problems that improve lives. one idea can unlock at chwe're a festive family. we're a four-legged family. we're a get-up-and-go family. we're a ski family. we're all part of the chevy family. and as we kick off the new year, we'd like you to be a part of ours. because our chevy employee discount is still available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. so happy new year, and welcome to the family. the chevy family! the chevy employee discount for everyone ends soon. it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer... cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting.
so watch out. i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... ...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.
korea. perhaps in the form of a long-range missile launch. since pyongyang issued the threat earlier this month. and according to a report from south korean media, the united states flew several spy planes over the korean peninsula over the holiday. this surveillance also comes after new satellite images showed the expansion of a military site used to produce long-range missiles. kim jong-un set a yearend deadline for the u.s. to make concessions in negotiations over north korea's nuclear arsenal. but as of now, diplomacy seems stalled. msnbc korean affairs analyst victor cho joins me now. former director for asian affairs at the national security council and a professor at georgetown university. victor, it's good to see you. and a lot of this is being presented kind of as a headline. we were promised a christmas gift. it never came. was that a real sort of deadline? could something still happen in the next few days? next few weeks? what do you think this is all about? >> sure, chris. i think something certainly could happen. i mean, north korea said they want to see trump make
concessions by the end of the year or else. and i think we have to take those threats seriously. we're long past the days when we could say north korea was a small, insignificant country that made threats we didn't have to pay attention to. they launched a missile a few months ago that had the possibility of reaching the united states. so we have to take these threats very seriously. >> well, when kim made the threat, the president was asked about it and he seemed to kind of downplay it. let me play exactly what he said. >> what options are you considering, mr. president, if it does end up being a long-range missile test? >> we'll see what happens. we'll see what happens. we'll -- let's see. maybe it's a nice present. maybe it's a present where he sends me a beautiful vase as opposed to a missile test. right? i may get a vase. i may get a nice present from him. you don't know. you never know. >> i don't think a lot of folks are thinking it's either a vase or one of the beautiful letters from kim jong-un. having said that, is a long-range missile test the only
option even if it's the most likely option? >> no, it's not the only option. they could demonstrate ballistic missile capability from the sea. they've done that once or twice already. they could demonstrate a capability to use solid fuel propellants. all of these things would show that north korea has made step increases in their capability. and moved in the direction of having a survivable nuclear weapons force, which means, one, that the united states cannot easily take out through military action. so, you know, these are very serious. at the same time, though, you know, this is pressure on trump to release some of the sanctions. that's what the north koreans wanted last february when the two leaders met in hanoi. >> so these crippling sanctions continue. there's been no letup in it. if, indeed, there were to be one of these possible, either a long-range missile test or something else, how would you expect the administration to respond? >> so i think the administration, whether they do a test or not, they basically
have this small window. i think probably through february where the north koreans might be interested in doing some sort of phase one deal where they freeze their tests in return for a lifting of sanctions. but after that, i think the north koreans are just going to sit back and they're going to wait to see what happens in the u.s. elections. there's no need for them to do a big deal with the united states, a big deal with trump where they give up a lot when they don't know if he's going to win the next election. so i think we have a small window between now and february where we could see some provocations and we could see some negotiations. but after that, it could get very ugly. >> yeah. and you also have people like john bolton questioning whether or not the president really means what he says. that, you know, about defending the u.s. in an interview, he said he does not think the administration really means it when president trump and top officials vow to stop north korea from having deliverables on nuclear weapons. or it would be pursuing a different course. do you agree with that assessment? >> well, that's certainly john
bolton's assessment. it's been his assessment for a long time. he believes we should be using every sanction possible in the book in -- including intercepting north korean vessels at sea. which is an act of war. i think maximum pressure is important. we have to accept that north korea may not be willing to give up all of their nuclear weapons. and so there needs to be a lot of sanctions pressure on north korea. but we have to understand the north koreans are also in a bit of a box, too. if they do an icbm test, that may be a wakeup call to the united states. but it will also upset their major economic patron, china, which will not like to see that. and north korea needs chinese assistance as they get to the end of -- end of this year where they have a terrible economic situation. >> victor cha, it's always great to have your expertise. thank you so much. happy new year. >> thanks, chris. >> and before we go to a break, i want to give you an update on one of the biggest stories of 2019. the future remains very uncertain for the notre dame cathedral in paris. for the first time in 200 years,
notre dame did not hold its annual christmas service. the rector of the cathedral said there is only a 50% chance it can be saved. and that's because the scaffolding that's needed for repairs is actually threatening the remaining structure itself. flames, of course, tore through the 12th century cathedral back in april. the fire destroyed notre dame's roof, called its spire to collapse, so we are going to keep an eye on this. and ahead, we've got a look back at that memorable event and some of the other top moments of 2019. fall back! you have a brother in the second battalion? they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. if you fail, we will lose sixteen hundred men. if we're not clever about this... no one will get to your brother. i will.
(air pump motors) (lamp crashes) ♪music it's the final days of the wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. and a compus lives here.t month's payment. where we can be surprised by others. and ourselves. for a better us, donate to your local y today.
as 2019 draws to a close, this is the time to look back. we've seen so much happen in the past 12 months from a record-breaking government shutdown to a devastating fire at notre dame that we mentioned earlier to emergence of new female super stars in sports, politics, and activism alike. it was the year tiger woods once again donned a green jacket and sean spicer donned satin. let's take a look back now at the year that was. >> the finale of the decade kicked off in historic style, dubbed the year of the woman, a record setting number sworn into congress including one break out star, so famous she's known by her initials, aoc. but in a year where the government shutdown in january --
>> i know a temper tantrum when i see one. >> -- defiant president was impeached in december. >> my body, my choice. >> not all the big news was about politics. a divided d.c. did some major bipartisan celebrating. the long belingered washington nationals with a heart stopping expectation defying world series win. >> they have climbed to the top of baseball's highest peak. >> tom brady and the patriots are always expected to be in the super bowl these days. they were and they won. a stunning come back for tiger woods at the masters. the u.s. women's world cup team emerged victorious too leaving behind viral moments. but the history books will record the team's impact on the fight for equal pay. >> we have to be better.
>> making hus ri as well, 16-year-old greta thub benberg. >> how dare you. >> california fought another round of deadly destructive fires n. brazil, the amazon burned and ignited a debate over deforce station. dorian, one of the most powerful hurricanes ever in the atlantic decimated the bahamas. >> there is the smell of death here. >> notre dame came down in a blaze that devastated the church. >> and the photo of a father and his 23 month old daughter came to symbolize the ongoing fight for immigrants and the failure of the system. the world lost true icons in 2019. >> i knew i could always count on elijah being honorable and doing the right thing. >> we said good-bye to elijah
cummings, nobel laureate, luke perry, and disney star cameron boyce, just 20. >> i've always been really into make up. >> at 21, kylie jenner turned fame into a major fortune. >> kylie has become the youngest self-made billionaire of all time. >> there was so much steam on the oscar's stage between bradley cooper and lady gaga, statements were issued denying the relationship. funny how photos cans. melania trump and justin trudeau broke the internet with a kiss on the cheek. boeing grounded faulty jets. >> there are a number of americans not going to be on these planes chlt. >> headaches all around. mark zuckerberg was called before congress twice. >> congresswoman, this isn't about helping the politicians.
>> it is hate speech. it is hate. >> walmart walked away from the gun business. >> walmart will discontinue the sells of ammunition. >> the next day people woke to the news that a gunman in dayton, ohio took nine more innocent lives. >> two cities, 13 hours, 29 lives. >> the courts were a busy place. former dahl lals police officer amber guyger sentenced to ten years in prison for shooting botham john. >> i don't know if this is possible. can i give her a hug, please. >> with an extraordinary act of forgiveness. >> felicity huffman spent 11 days in jail. the highest profile parents in the cheating scandal.
>> actor jussie smollett walked away from a hate crime hoax. >> guzman in a colorado super max for life. >> awas couped sex trafficker jeffrey epstein has died. >> and sexual predator jeffrey epstein allegedly committed suicide while in jail. prince andrew had a disastrous interview. >> you were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender. >> it was a convenient place to stay. >> there were moments to celebrate too, a royal baby named archie born to an american mom became 7th in line to the throne. eight precocious winners tied at the national spelling bee. the new yorker declares the pop pie's chicken sandwich is here
to save america. even presidential tweets couldn't save sean spicer on dancing with the stars. not as flashy as the camp carpet of the met gala. one more star to mention before we let 2019 go. a girl named elsa strikes box office gold, punctuated the year of this woman from start to finish. ed 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. ♪ who doesn't love a deal? i do. check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.
plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options.
we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." "the beat" starts now. amon in for ari. >> tonight trump facing pressure from the right as he prepares to go on trial for alleged crimes. also rudy giuliani is going scorched earth against his old office, the southern district of new york. we have an exclusive guest who used to work with giuliani. and jay-z's impact on politics, how he talks about politics and why trump first lady resents him for it. we start with trump and his impeachment trial. suggesting a primary challenge to pelosi calling his impeachment a scam and falsely saying there was no due process, pr
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on