tv MSNBC Live With Richard Lui MSNBC December 28, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
how he would respond if subpoenaed by the senate to good evening, and welcome to testify during its impeachment "politics nation." trial of president trump. well, here's a look at some of tonight's lead -- he should have known better. what he had to say about all of one year ago today, the country that. >> do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't was in the middle of the longest comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial government shutdown ever. before the senate? >> correct, and the reason i hi, i'm joan lunden. almost one million federal when my mother began forgetting things, employees were forced to work wouldn't is because it's all without pay. we didn't know where to turn for more information. all because the white house designed to deal with trump doing what he's done his whole that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. demanded billions to build life, trying to take the focus trump's signature border wall. off him. we have local senior living advisors that stalemate pitted soon-to-be >> but since then, joe biden has attempted to clarify those who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care comments via twitter, saying, and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad. quote, in my 40 years in public life i have always complied with a lawful order, biden going on we all want what's best for our parents, so call today. to say but i am just not going to pretend that there's any legal basis for republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial, adding this impeachment is about trump's conduct, not mine. well, president trump and his family and his campaign as well music streaming platform spotify has announced it will have sought to pour intense
stop selling political advertising in 2020. focus on the former vice president and son, saying their they're following in twitter's family accounted corruptly in footsteps. ukraine. cnbc reports, quote, unlike the president has been on a twitter and facebook, spotify twitter tear during the holiday refrained from offering its week all about that, and perspective on political appearing to turn much of his advertising. only saying that the decision is the result of the music ire on house speaker nancy streaming company not having pelosi. joining us now on more on all of sufficient tools to vet the ads. this, nbc news correspondent the "wall street journal" says hans nichols who is with the this decision will, quote, cut off what was already a narrow president in palm beach where the president has been on channel for major political campaigns, noting 2020 vacation for the holidays, but he is not holiday-ing when it candidates, senator elizabeth comes to social media, hans. warren, mayor pete buttigieg, >> richard, that would be one and senator bernie sanders have way to put it. previously purchased ads on we just heard from the president. spotify. back with us, susan milligan, he's going after nancy pelosi yet again. she's really been the focus, the simone pathet. simone, let's start with you. ire of most of his twitter tie if you look at the numbers, it's raids. he hasn't weighed in on the a big deal. open secrets who's been tracking latest biden back and forth. and the most recent sound we had how many dollars we're talking from biden, he spoke to about here over 100 million in reporters after he did a town hall in iowa and it was then digital advertising as twitter goes dark, that's the headline that he indicated he had these qualifications on when he would here. and now we see spotify go dark. actually testify and honor a senate subpoena. what does this mean for as i understand it, he's saying
candidates specifically as they he would comply with a lawful try to get their message out one and legitimate subpoena and then the question becomes what's to one? >> yeah. this is a big deal for lawful and what's legitimate, candidates, campaigns, outside and what biden is saying is that groups, especially as they're increasingly trying to target he has no firsthand knowledge of younger voters. and remember that as tv is the subject at hand. fading in sort of the political >> the whole point of this is advertising world, digital allows you to target your audience much, much more anyone subpoenaed relating to specifically than tv did. you can target those ads to the this investigation of the age demographic that you want, president has to be able to have the racial demographic, the some knowledge on whether or not income level, even education he committed the offenses he is level based on what people are viewing, and for campaigns, that's a really key way to get accused of committing. their message out. i have no firsthand knowledge. and even different messages to the answer is, i don't think different people depending who that's going to happen and let's you want to talk to. without platforms like twitter cross that bridge when it comes. or spotify, it becomes harder to do that. i would in fact abide by whatever was legally required of >> you know, susan, are they doing the right thing here? me. i always have. >> i think it makes sense certainly from a business >> reporter: so i think it's the last bit that we should really perspective in that you either don't run the ads or you run focus on, will always comply them and vet them, and it with what is legally required of probably costs a lot mother nature to vet the ads than it him, always has. obviously he's raising does to -- an income from objections, he's giving some getting them. yeah. i think especially for a qualifications, and we'll just
have to see where this goes. platform like that to just refuse the ads it's not the in some ways a lot of this is same thing as other platforms, premature because we don't have not like facebook. they're probably not losing so any indication that the articles of impeachment, there's been a much money that it makes it, you deal to satisfy nancy pelosi to know -- >> you lose your credibility, transfer the articles of impeachment over to the senate too, right, if you start and we don't hav indication becoming a platform for ads that are not true. >> are they saying in a way, that senator mcconnell or chuck simone, we want more help, we schumer are having a conversation to hash out what an want some regulation, we want actual trial would look like. so it's a hypothetical question somebody to help us do this the and joe biden is trying to clarify his initial response and right way? now he's taking a third go at >> i think that's potentially one interpretation, sure. it, richard. i mean, you've got them saying >> hans nichols with the president. thanks so much, hans, as always. they don't have the tools necessary, a lot of social media now joining our discussion, sites have been pretty vague daniel strauss, and susan mill about the regulations that they're using, if they're using begin and simone path, senior any regulations to vet the ads that they have on platforms. politics reporter for roll call. i think in some senses, yeah, it would be helpful for the let's kick it off with you, cultures to have a blanket -- daniel. joe biden part of the conversation here clearly as we move into 2020, impeachment. the companies to have blanket spot. >> early on when it comings to also the big wrapper that's elections. whether it comes to issue around the discussion today, especially when it comes to joe advertising, they have not been specific on that. just a footnote. biden, really getting ahead of simone, susan, thank you.
that wraps it up for me this the game not even knowing if he's going to be officially asked to testify by the senate hour, i'm richard lui. or not. for some reason, they may think let me know what you think, i'll get back to you. that they're going to have him more news after the break. ter t. to be honest a little dust it never bothered me. asked. >> it's obviously something that the trump administration and trump's allies really want to see. they want to turn this impeachment trial into a referendum on joe biden. that's really what this is all about, turning into this something tbludgeon against thee president. they see this as the entire impeachment effort by democrats as a partisan move and they want until i found out what it actually was. to prove that the president's dust mite droppings! claims throughout this year is eeeeeww! dead skin cells! gross! that the democrats in general so now, i grab my swiffer sweeper and heavy-duty dusters. are motivated only by politics duster extends to three feet to get all that gross stuff and looking to score political joints. gotcha! and they're trying to -- if they and for that nasty dust on my floors, my sweeper's on it. do subpoena vice president the textured cloths grab and hold dirt and hair biden, that connect him to hunter biden and sort of the no matter where dust bunnies hide. no more heebie jeebies. accusations at the core of trump's arguments in ukraine. phew.
glad i stopped cleaning and started swiffering. >> a big part of this here, susan, and please do reflect on what daniel was saying, is the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o timing, right? but why go back there as we move into the primaries, when you can stay home as leader pelosi makes that with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you decision, come monday she did at risk of serious infection. in a key study not hand over those articles as neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% was expected here, when will they do that, will she do it, a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to and what might be the levers, deliver neulasta® the day after chemo what might be the contingencies that she is looking for before and is used by most patients today. she does that? neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving >> it's interesting, this is like a little bit of payback on strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it the part of the speaker. or neupogen (filgrastim). i don't think that's what's motivating her, but they've sent an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. hundreds of bills over to the ruptured spleen, senate the senate has not acted sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems on. now she's in control ironically allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. of a procedure that should be in the senate's control by not report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or turning over the articles of allergic reactions to your doctor right away. impeachment. what she wants is for them to provide documents and call in patients with sickle cell disorders, witnesses like you would in a normal trial and can withhold serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the articles of impeachment. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. until they do that -- and that if you'd rather be home doesn't really work for the ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. president. he doesn't want a trial, he's not wanted impeachment. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.
but the one thing that he's looked forward to is the ability to wave the acquittal by the senate around, or the expected acquittal, like it's an acquittal slip on an episode of "law and order" and so i think she's in control of the situation. >> if she's in charge of the situation, some might say no, it's mitch mcconnell. that he is now deciding what the rules will be. there's a debate of whether chief justice roberts will be the actual power player during this trial, but for most folks like yourselves who are watching politics, it's mitch mcconnell and he's making the decisions right now. >> it is, and remember the only republican senator we've seen at this point express any concern about the way this trial could unfold is alaska senator lisa murkowski. this is a republican in a fairly unique position that she actually lost her primary in 2010 and was able to win re-election to the senate via a
write-in campaign. but she lost the support of her entire party's leadership so she doesn't owe them anything and i wouldn't look at the fact that she might be having misgivings as an indication there's going to be a further break on the part of the republican party. >> there's a poll that came out that reflect on whether the electorate believes that donald trump should allow aides to give their testimony during the trial. some interesting numbers. overall 71% saying yes, 22% saying no. but look at the republican column here, daniel, from the "washington post" and abc news. that might be surprising to some because it is not going been reflected that way when we look at those that support president trump and support him not being impeached. these numbers might be of some concern potentially. >> it's possible. we are really in unchartered territory with impeachment. the last impeachment effort against then-president bill clinton was over something very different than now. usually and in the past few
years there's been a strong cautiousness of both democrats and republicans when members of their party call for impeachment. but now the situation is different. we are seeing -- i think it's clear to say a new sort of interaction among the grass roots base, and so approval numbers are not going to be what for years political experts have projected they would be when one party moves toward impeaching a sitting president. >> one idea that's been thrown out there, and this is in the hill, is an op ed that described how we may not see a trial until after the election, and how it might actually help the republicans in some ways. so susan, i'll read part of it. the nuclear option says this, according to the hill in this op ed, by bradley blakeman, there's no requirement or need for an actual trial in the senate. and then there is a nuclear option the senate majority could make a procedural motion to
adjourn the start of a trial until november 4th, 2020. that would allow the american people to decide the president's fate at the ballot box. what do you think, susan? >> well, it would be helpful in some ways in that the president would not have this hanging over him during a re-election campaign. certainly nobody would want to go through that. on the other hand, as i said, it does deprive him of the ability to come out and say, look, i was impeached by those partisan, awful democrats, but they found me not guilty in the senate. and it does deprive him of that. but certainly it might remove it as a distraction during the campaign for him. >> let's get over to you on this, simone, right now. fundraising, i want to move to that as we look at 2020, and they're all looking to close the quarter quite nicely. but elizabeth warren not looking so nice. describe that very quickly, she has a little over 17 million. it's a good chunk that's behind where she was at at the same
time last quarter? >> that's right. she is significantly behind where she was in the third quarter. she sent out another plea today. interesting the way she framed it, referring to her 2012 senate race when she was of course an underdog against scott brown and she tried to paint the picture as an underdog again today, telling voters that she needs to raise another couple of million dollars to reach their goal of $20 million for the end of the quarter. interesting to see what's going on. she's had a few stumbles with her health care policies and potentially some of the progressive base feeling weary how she's trying to walk back her support for medicare for all. >> i wanted to talk about the question i was discussing with susan, as well as daniel, and that's on whether or not the president should allow aides to give testimony, and how that might affect the president's opinion here, hans, because the numbers are quite high when you look at the republicans answering the this poll. 64%, two-thirds saying, yeah,
let's hear from them. >> reporter: well, the white house has always argued -- and not necessarily the president, but this is an institutional argument from the white house, is that they need to preserve executive privilege and the ability of the president to talk to his aides in a free and candid way. so the letters that have come from the white house counsel's office have asserted something called absolute immunity. what president trump has always said is that he is open to the possibility of witnesses and he always says we'll check with the lawyers. his most recent comments on the oval office about two weeks ago were saying that it was basically up to mitch mcconnell on whether or not there would be witnesses called. so the president himself hasn't entirely shut the door on these witnesses, however the white house has made it exceedingly difficult and clear to the political appointees in the white house that they were not to cooperate with the house version of this and not on the senate side as well. but, you know, there's still a lot we don't know about the senate side, so that's truer for
the house side when this impeachment inquiry was still an inquiry and not yet a former impeachment, richard. >> a lot of triangulation when you look at impeachment and the 2020 election happening right now with variables yet to be determined. my panel sticking around. hans nichols, thank you, my friend. still ahead, we'll dig more into the misgivings over the impeachment process, this time from republicans. plus troubling claims from former colleagues of navy s.e.a.l. navy gallagher who allege in leaked videos that the former platoon leader was, quote, evil.
pluralistic, equal and open democracy that we've been fighting for in this country since people died on the battlefield in the civil war. >> welcome back, negotiations over the president's impeachment trial are still going on, despite congress being in recess until the beginning of the movement house speaker nancy pelosi has not yet transferred the articles of impeachment to the senate, as was expected. she said she will wait until senate majority leader mitch mcconnell announces the trial process. for his part, mitch mcconnell has been up front about his intent to coordinate with president trump and the white house every step of the way, an approach that even some republicans find questionable, most notably alaskan senator lisa murkowski. >> in fairness, when i heard that i was disturbed. if we are tasked as the full knit 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 heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that that has further confused the process. >> the criticism is coming from outside congress as well with a new ad demanding that the senate impeachment trial include witness testimony, paid for by a group called republicans for the rule of law. >> key witnesses in the ukraine scandal must testify in the senate impeachment trial. these witnesses include rudy giuliani. >> you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? >> of course i did. >> mick mulvaney? >> what you just described is a quid pro quo. >> there's going to be political in fru influence. >> and john bolton. >> lawyer for john bolton says that his client has new information on these meetings with ukraine.
>> these witnesses must testify. call your senators now. >> meanwhile, the president has spent the weekend tweeting, mentioning the speaker by name in more than a dozen tweets. we have former assistant watergate special prosecutor and msnbc contributor and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. thanks for being here. i wanted to start with this. as we look at what nancy pelosi might do next, jill, can she wait and how long can she wait? >> there is no rule that requires a timeline for turning it over. in federal criminal trials, you can seal an indictment and hold it for a very long time, depending on the circumstances, until you identify and locate the defendant, or for any other reason. so it could be held for as long as she wants. and what is the point of sending it over to the senate when the
senate has announced the decision? they don't care about the evidence, they don't care about the facts. they've said we are working with the defense and that's how it is and i guarantee that no one will vote to convict the president on the republican side. that's what mcconnell said. so there's not much advantage to turning it over, unless there can be at least a full hearing at which the american people can then judge for themselves the credibility of witnesses, and the few brave republican senators who might pay attention to the evidence could be swayed. in watergate, the republicans actually paid attention and they voted in the house judiciary committee for articles of impeachment because they heard the facts and then, by the time it got further, it was the republicans who went to the white house and said you have to resign or you will be convicted. there is no more support for you in the senate.
so there is some hope, based on past history, that republicans might vote to convict based on the evidence. so we need the evidence. that means the witnesses that have been called for need to come forward, and i would add duffy from omb to that list. >> and 51 is the number which will override any decision procedurally, chief justice roberts will be in there, he will effectively be leading it. but the 51 senators say we want it one way, it must go that way. however, cynthia, as you know so well here, potentially and was mentioned by jill, there could be some republican senators that are not going to agree, they're not going to be part of the 51 necessarily. they do hold some power. lisa murkowski could be one of five or ten or seven gop senators that might be bargaining for a little bit of say here. that is of course a democratic pipe dream some say.
do you see that happening, cynthia? >> you know, i don't. i view it as a democratic pipe dream. i hate to be debbie downer. but lisa murkowski, there's a lot of hand wringing on kavanaugh and then she just voted present. susan collins sighs and whines and then she voted for kavanaugh. everybody is waiting for romney to be the great savior and the guy votes 80% with trump. so it's not a good way to start the year to be so negative. but i don't have much faith in the republican party rallying to their honor and to the constitution. moreover, i don't think mcconnell will do anything until the independent number goes a little higher that demands witnesses. i think that's the number he looks at right now the morning consult poll has it at 51%, which is a majority, which is why i think he's backtracked a little bit. but it's going to have to go higher because the independent vote is going to make a difference whether or not he's
reelected and wins the senate seats. this guy is a political animal, he's all about his power. i think that's what will move him, not anything else. >> political power, you know one of the things that might be challenging, mitch mcconnell, at least making him think, he has a brand new contender to deal with. her name is mcgrath in his home state, that has said i'm going to run against mitch mcconnell. also, he's looking at one of the local papers, that reads opinion, donald trump has violated his oath, mitch mcconnell is about to violate, too, his oath. and this is what lisa murkowski is concerned about. is mitch mcconnell on his heels at all? >> i think that there is some chance that he's, because, although i agree with cynthia that the independent number is very important to both parties in this election, 65% of republicans think that there have to be witnesses. so he can't afford to lose so many republicans and if 64% want
witnesses -- and in his home state amy mcgrath is doing very well, so there is some chance that he could lose his seat if he plays this wrong. so i'm hoping that he will back off a little bit and pay attention to those polls and at least allow a full rendition of the facts. because facts matter and can persuade people. again, you go back to paula duncan, the juror in the manafort trial who said i am a loyal trump supporter and i think this whole investigation is a hoax and a witch hunt, but i heard the evidence in the courtroom and as a juror i was sworn to listen to that, and i voted to convict him on all 18 counts. so there is some chance that even loyal trump supporters will vote for a conviction. >> quickly, cynthia, as you're thinking through the womanship here when it comes to nancy pelosi, what is she going to do potentially next? is there anything on the issue side that she might play, throw
out a card here, that helps her in the impeachment process as she is gaming right now with mitch mcconnell? >> she's only had like really 48 hours of time to transfer. i don't think we need to get that worried about it just yet. i do think with mcconnell, because he's such a political animal, political uncertainty makes him move and makes him do things differently because he wants to hold onto power. and now as this time has passed, what's happened is more evidence has been developed. we've gotten more emails that support that the president within 90 minutes of telling the president of ukraine and pressuring him to try to dig up dirt or create dirt, more accurately, on biden, he was calling and canceling the money that she so desperately needed to protect their country. that evidence is now coming out. so with this time, with the time that she's given herself, more evidence is coming out. additionally there are other
political issues like the threat to the aca, which makes the entire ground shift for mcconnell. so time i think is on her side. i would never bet against speaker pelosi. she is a lioness. >> there are definitely two folks that both of you will be watching very carefully and that is going to be mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi, two operatives that have been on the hill for decades and know what they're doing. thank you so much. always great conversation. you're going to stick around and i'll talk to you in a little bit. inside confident interviews with the navy s.e.a.l.s who accused eddie gallagher of war crimes and called him toxic and evil. we'll talk about general mk calfer tee about how the president intervened after this i
. new details have surfaced about the case against eddie gallagher, the retired navy s.e.a.l. who became a focus of president trump during this past year. gallagher was accused of war crimes, including first degree murder, but he was acquitted by a military jury in july but for one minor charge. then he was cleared in full by president trump in november. now new videos and text messages obtained by "the new york times"
show detailed accounts from navy s.e.a.l.s who turned gallagher in to face war crime charges. kate snow has more on what was uncovered and the evidence that some may find disturbing. >> the guy got crazier and crazier. >> in 2018, one after another, navy s.e.a.l.s expressed grave concerns about their platoon leader, eddie gallagher. >> you could tell he was perfectly okay with killing anybody. >> they are going against this unwritten rule of not taking dirty laundry outside of the s.e.a.l.s. >> in navy tapes obtained by the weekly, they accuse gallagher of targeting civilians, women and children. >> i saw eddie take a shot at probably a 12-year-old kid. >> it kind of turned into the platoon being eddie's personal like sniper escort to get him from place to place so he could try to do sniper ops. >> team members saying they would intentionally fire shots to warn iraqi civilians. >> they would shoot so they would run away and hide before
eddie would engage them. >> the "times" also obtaining el met camera video never seen outside of a courtroom. a young isis fighter had been wounded by a bomb. >> eddie came over the radio and said don't touch him, i've got him. nobody touch him, he's all mine. >> gallagher is seen with a medic bag pushing him and then the camera goes black. it is not clear why. >> all of a sudden he just started stabbing the dude. >> i see eddie laying over him with a knife. >> "the new york times" says gallagher writes got him with my hunting knife. >> did he say anything when you did that or did he just pull out a knife. >> he just pulled out a knife and started stabbing him. >> the s.e.a.l. changed his story at gallagher's trial last summer. after being granted immunity, he said he was the one who killed the isis fighter. >> eddie gallagher was acquitted
on charges of murder and attempted murder. he was found guilty of posing for a photo with the corps. >> they went in and told these completely fantastic, unsupported and fake stories. >> gallagher's attorney says "the new york times" is trying to relitigate the story and says gallagher has asked him to sue reporter dave phillips. >> there's a couple of members of the platoon who had a personal animosity toward eddie gallagher. they didn't perform well in combat. they were afraid of being called out for being cow ards, they made up a story and they went with it. >> this past weekend gallagher posed for photos with president trump at mar-a-lago. >> he was a great fighter, one of the ultimate fighters. >> in november president trump ordered the pentagon not to strip gallagher of his rank and trident pin. >> we're still on cloud nine about it but i can tell you that my family is completely grateful for this decision. >> thank you for that report.
eddie gallagher claims the charges against him were made by s.e.a.l.s who wanted to force him out. in a statement to the "times" gallagher said in part, quote, my first reaction to seeing the video was surprise and disgust that they would make up blatant lies about me, but i quickly realized that they were scared that the truth would come out of how cowardly they acted on deployment. >> joining us, msnbc military analyst and four star general and former general counsel of the army, and msnbc contributor. general, what do you make of this new information, of this testimony that we've been able to see via "the new york times" that was discovered? >> well, it's heartbreaking. the allegations against this navy s.e.a.l. essentially portray him as a murderous sociopath. it was his own members of his force that turned him in and testified against him. now, the problem, richard, is the court martial was a real mess.
there were allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and allegations against the judge. we had the president's lawyer and bernie care ig making these allegations and we have overt command influence from president trump taking him out of pretrial confinement, even though he had allegedly threatened to have witnesses killed. so the trial was a mess. and we've got to remember he was acquitted, except on the one charge. so we're left with a question of the uniform code of military justice is a law passed by congress. it's not the white house's law. it's not the pentagon's law. it's a congressional system of justice, and it works pretty well. and i think we've seen command influence by president trump in a manner that if he was a general court martial authority, two-star general, we would fire him. so we've got a real problem. now, the other thing, though, and i think this is important,
that special operations community whose courage and dedication has kept us from having a dozen more 9/11s, they've been out there in combat for 19 years. it's time to recheck their system of discipline. i think there's too much disturbing evidence of malfeasance on the part of the special ops community. >> jill, putting on your prosecutorial hat, your general counsel hat here with this new information that's come out, he has been pardoned, but what might happen with this new information, whether in military court or in civilian court, if at all? >> well, first of all, i agree with everything that general mccafferty said and this case is a mess because of a witness changing his testimony on the stand, because of prosecutorial misconduct. alleged, now, we don't know. i haven't seen any final determination of that.
but if it's true there was interference with the defense relationship with the defendant, then that would be a very bad thing, for which the prosecutor should probably be disbarred and maybe there should be some military action from the jag corps against him. what will happen is still unknown. but this is so disturbing that you have a man who was not charged with war crimes, per se, and wasn't charged with all of these other actions that would have been absolutely a violation of everything the military stands for. they are trained to defend and protect us, not to kill civilians and to kill prisoners of war. and we still don't really know who killed this particular person, but there are now allegations that gallagher murdered other people and i think that has to be investigated. the military is taking action in terms of the jag corps, the navy is looking at their processes
and procedures. i recently have been on a commit looking at sexual assault in the military, and when general mccafferty mentioned undue command influence, that was charged when president obama said something about we have to take these cases more seriously and the military did. well, why isn't president trump being charged with the same sort of undue command influence for everything he has done in this case and several others? >> general, i'll reflect on what jill is saying there and i want to add to this something that you probably have seen that came out in the last week or two, and that's from the military times. and the question was how favorable or unfavorable is your view of president donald trump, of those from the military. and those from the military responded as a 50% favor -- very unfavorable or unfavorable. so at least half of those polled in the military saying we do not see the president favorably. i ask this here, general,
because of the idea of command and control which you know so well, checks and balances. and given this new information and what it reflects about his own unit and overall what it means for the camaraderie that is so important in the military. >> well, first of all, let me strongly straight that the u.s. armed forces are going to follow loyally the leg orders of the president of the united states, period. so their viewpoint, whether they like him, is irrelevant to the process. as long as it's a legal order, the armed forces should and will follow instructions. having said that, the u.s. armed forces actually wants to follow the law. we want to be the good guys. we have been in every war. they investigate and prosecute wrongdoing when they discover it. the worst thing president trump is doing is he's calling into question the change of command's commitment to the rule of law. he's got to knock that off.
our armed forces are a disciplined, volunteer force of 2.1 million men and women. and they're still in combat. so we've got to maintain our standards, and mr. trump has got to stay out of that. >> always great to have both of you. general mccafferty and jill wine-banks on a very important topic on this saturday. go and have a great saturday. thank you so much. still to come, a pillar of american democracy at risk again, a new report detailing the russian threat to your vote. how they've already hacked the voting system and what, if anything, can be done to stop them. at lib butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night.
(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. well, the 2020 election approaching. we're seeing primary votes about to start. states in the federal government are now trying to wrap their arms around how to make sure that your votes are secure. next year, for instance, george is rolling out 30,000 fou
machines for the presidential primary. they are replacing the paperless system with an electronic system. colorado's election officials are training with former and current military specialists in addition to others to develop training and manuals for state and local officials. and michigan has hired a dedicated election security specialist to focus on voter registry. and last week's appropriations bill signed into law, it provides in that bill $420 million for new election security measures nationwide. but billions will be needed to make significant changes to voting technologies. so, therefore, what can really be done with so little money? questions that we're asking as part of nbc and msnbc's vote watch. back with me, senior reporter of u.s. news and world report. susan and the guardian's political reporter daniel strauss.
i almost got that right. susan, let's start with you. clearly just by the numbers, we're way off here if those estimates by the brendan center are right. it's good to see in key states that i just brought up some examples that they're doing something. but i'll ask you, is it enough? >> no. i mean, you know, all the experts are saying it requires billions. the $420 or that they allocated is certainly better than the zero that they al indicated for this year. but clearly there needs to be a much more extensive effort, particularly what we know about russian interference in the 2016 campaign. and the other side of this that we keep for getting as we talk about the impeachment and the mueller report is in a way putin has already won. what he wanted was to undermine american faith in our democracy and trump winning was kind of a bonus for him. but all of these things are undermining people's faith in elections and what happens when they go to the ballot box. >> we get more information as
the days goes on and the question might be, for instance, politico had a recent report that showed again confirming what we already knew coming from our intelligence agencies that the russians did hack the 2016 election. but many may not feel that heat, that there's this danger of, again what happening in 2016 continuing to a greater degree and why aren't our government, our secretaries of state across the country moving? >> well, i think they're trying to, but as we know, bob mueller said they were trying to -- the russians are trying to hack us right now. and the trump administration has not pushed it. in 2018 they had a huge cybersecurity amount of money that was al indicated to the state department. they didn't spend a penny of it. basically they have not been fighting back like they need to. and the brendan center said 2.2 billion, this is a drop in a bucket. to try to be positive about it,
virginia did replace its voting machines. ost about $30 million and they did it in several months. but recognize you not only have to deal with voting machines, but the entire registration process and that database is a threat. if somebody comes in and hacks the database, it doesn't matter if the voting machine works if you're not allowed to vote. we need to spend money on the databases and on the cybersecurity experts. we need post-election audits, so most states don't do those so they don't know they've been hacked. and we need sof contingency planning. and we have a lot of problems and i'm pretty worried about it. iowa is in an interesting situation. for the first time the iowa caucuses, you're going to be able to vote not in person for the first time. it's a totally new system and it's a threat. i wish i could be more positive about it, but i am worried about it and i do agree that the russians on some level have already won because it is giving
us a real concern about the validity of our elections, and that is one of their great game plans. >> let's talk about the concern of that validity. that's the fifth element, i believe, which is a poll. how much confidence do you have that your vote in the 2020 presidential election will be counted accurately? when you look at republicans, 41%, democrats 16%, so we do see a difference between democrats and republicans here, daniel. and what might that say? >> i mean, look, it says that there is one party that feels in the past few years that there's been a strong pattern of voter disenfranchisement. this is why democrats often say that the election for governor of georgia was stolen from their party and stacey abrams. and there's evidence to back up the concern that our elections and this next election cycle
will see strong concerted efforts of interference from born entities. most of the intelligence community has said time and time again, through report after report, that our election systems are vulnerable to outside interference. and still to this day, most experts in this field, as you've noted, have not changed their tune there. i think there's going to be an ongoing sense of concern from major levels of the democratic party about this. >> and what is concerning for most probably is when you look at the beltway or technology or tech, they certainly aren't seeing eye to eye and they're part of the security we're talking about. thank you so much. have a great saturday. nbc's vote watch, by the way, consists of a team of nbc news journalists across divisions to report on issues relating to security.
as well as voting machine and technology issues. you can find more information on that at nbcnews.com. when we come back, spotify changing its tune on political ads as the fight on advertising on social media platforms gets a little more complex. mom, why do we always come here for the holidays? how did you find great-grandma's recipe? we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian?
grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. are you currently using a whitening toothpaste, behind every question but not seeing results? try crest 3d whitestrips. its enamel-safe formula lifts and removes stains to provide 100% noticeably whiter teeth or your money back. try crest 3d whitestrips.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on