it means you had fun last night. good for you. >> bye. it is high noon just about here in the east, 9:00 a.m. out west. a subpoena battle, what house republicans hope to gain from the former fbi director and former attorney general to testify about the clinton e-mails. >> this is something that should have been done a while ago. >> it seems like this matter has been closed. >> any sort of legal delay will inevitably wrap this up in court and wind down the clock. plus robert mueller now has written answers from the president, but the two sides could still battle over one big remaining issue. and the federal government releases a warning about climate change. at odds with the policy of president trump. this hour, who in washington is listening.

a top house republican today is defending his decision to compel these two on your screen, though two former justice department officials, to testify in private. the house judiciary committee has subpoenaed them, calling to testify in early december. the topic, a blast from the past. they want answers on how they handled the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. the bone of contention, whether the hearing should be private. james comey is happen to answer, but only if he testifies in public. bob goodelatt says he hopes they take on a investigation. he was asked why he's insisting

on the private hearing. >> why? because others witnesses would be able to hear the testimony. when you have an open hearing and each member of congress gets five minutes to ask questions, you can't dig deep into the important issues that have been raised in this investigation. ironically ivanka trump is facing her own e-mail issues. joining mess is jane small and ashton herndon. big welcome to you both on this saturday. jane, i'm going to start here with the public questioning over the hillary clinton e-mails. is the gop doing the bidding for the president on this issue?

>> the timing is really interesting, because we're headed into a lame-duck session. when the new congress comes in, republicans will no longer control these committees. this is certainly something that the president has called on multiple times. the fact they're suddenly bringing this back up at the very last minute, the very last time they could possibly do it, the timing feels incredibly political, frankly. at the same time, to also have ivanka's e-mails come out right snow, you have this question of, is it a double standard you're not also investigating ivanka's e-mails? there's another committee on the hill that will investigate, the house oversight committee, chaired by trey gowdy. he does want to hear why the first daughter apparently send hundreds of work e-mails on a personal e-mail, but the two investigation will have to wrap up incredibly quickly. there's less than 20 days

cleanleft in the legislative calendar. >> what do we know about the content? surely there could be something explosive, but we don't know what's in there. certainly if trey gowdy doesn't get to the bottom of it in the next 20 days, certainly you'll see the democrats pick that up down the road. is it something personal in nature? is it something sensitive? nature thee trying to hide? or just an honest mistake? >> ashton, any chance that congressman goodlatt, does it have a chance of actually happening? >> to have the clinton e-mail

issue rise to do level of a special counsel, that's something that jeff sessions resisted. we know he's been ousted in favor of someone more politically aligned with the president. we don't have any indications that that is coming or on its way. there's a lesson they have taken from these mid terms, hug the president's message as closely as possible. they ingested the president's line of thinking on the november results saying those people who tried to play both sides of the coin with me have lost. so you have seen congressional republicans lean more into a trumpy messaging than previously. it's not surprising you have people bringing up the greatest hits of a trump rally, like the clinton e-mail scandal, at this point. >> is this posturing to a

degree? do they have no other choice but to call for an investigation of ivanka, given trump 'reese lentless attacks on hillary clinton, which continue today? >> we've seen them call for this on some other issues, so it's not surprising to see him go farther on this. i will say that democrats will go after that issue, no matter what. whatever happens in the next 20 days on the question what was e-mails did she send and the content, we have seen democrats signal that's something they're going to look into going forward. so i'm interested in what the motivations of chairman gowdy are there, but we know the kind of question and the fallout of the white house senior divorce will come from democrats, no matter what. >> speaking of looking into things, on the khashoggi killing, you have house democrats, adam schiff widely

expected to be the chair, planning to investigate the president's financial ties to saudi arabia. in light of his somewhat tepid, i guess we'll call it, response to the saudis. what would an investigation light like? and would it dig into trump's finances, jay? >> i think it has to by definition. you're trying to understand does saudi arabia have some sort of leverage over the president here, where he is somehow compromised in a way. this journalist who worked with "the washington post," who was killed in a turkish consulate in turkey, and so i think there is this question of, why is his response so out of step with the response of the american government? t the cia has said that mbs, as we

call him, is responsible for this, and trump says i've spoken with mbs, and i kind of believe him that he's not responsible for this. that's a complete polar opposite than what your own government is saying, so why is it so out of step? is there some reason that saudi arabia and mbs has some leverage over trump? that financial leverage could be quite serious. >> look, to your point that we don't know about it, is there any guarantee that a congressional investigation would get access to trump's finances? >> we've never seen his tax returns. he's the only presidential candidate, except i think for bernie sanders, but certainly the only presidential nominee who has never released his tax returns. that's a big deal.

what do the investments mean for his business? what does it mean as a businessman moving into the white house? there's no transparency of what leverage these cunning might have over the president. >> let's listen to the president this week as he was disputing the findings. hi insistsed agency did not deliver a conclusion. >> i don't know if anyone will be able to conclude that the crown prince did it, but i will say this -- i don't know, i don't know, but whether he did or whether he didn't, he denies it vehemently. his father denies, the king, vehemently. do you think, ashton, this is something the president could lose support over? he's essential going against what the cia assessment is. >> we've seen a couple moments with the president like this.

it takes me back to the press conference with vladimir putin, where folks were befuddled and how the president could take on the language of a known enemy against the word of our intelligence operation. i would remind folks then we had people in the gop push back. we had folks say they were troubled, that they were disappointed in the president's actions. then a couple weeks goes by, a new news cycle happens, and they come around. we are currently in a moment from folks are befuddled at the response to the saudi arabia, and we have people like lindsey graham, a trump ally, who has aligned himself with the president, came out saying that statement was disappointing, but we don't have any evidence that's permanent or will have any long-term political effects on the relationship between trump and his own party. there are the questions we don't

know. there are things about trump's finances, as jay is saying, would have to come from tax returns or a greater level of transparency, but here's what we do know, that trump was the head of a massive business organization that had ties with these governments, had business interests in his governments -- >> which he bragged about, by the way. remember that? >> exactly. they things were out in the open. certainly democrats will try to look into that in the next legislative session, but we already know this is a president who has been linked to these places. how much of that is exerting his influence and decision-making? we're not sure of that, but that will continue to cloud all the president's decisions globally. >> to be continued, thank to see y -- good to see you both. thank you.

> nbc white house correspondent kellie o'donnell has more on the release of the study. let's get to the reaction on this. >> reporter: good to be with you, alex, happy holiday weekend to you. a holiday weekend is a primetime for governments, current and past, to try to make public things that they think are not ideal for their circumstances. that's why there's this accusation that the trump administration is burying, the term used in washington, this new report at a time when fewer people might be paying attention, this is more than 1600 pages, compiled by 13 federal agencies. there's a requirement that it must be released, but this is the first time it falls under the trump years. the last installment came in 2014. what it's finding is in fact there are temperatures rising,

it is happening kojzantly, affecting all regions of the country and the projection that they're making is the crazy and insane and incredibly catastrophic weather events we are seeing, are a part of that. the scientists say the only explanation they have is there must be a human component. so the prescription for this is that there should be more work done to look for clean energy sources, and possibly in terms of policy changes on emitters. the trump administration has been in favor of fossil fuel, supporting the coal industry and so forth. the president has notingly tweeted in the last week or so about the cold weather up north, whatever happened with global warming? the white house did issue a

statement when this report came out, and basically to reporters like myself, they said a couple things. one, thankfully the u.s. is leading the world in trying to reduce carbon emissions. they say relying on a good economy will mean more innovation, and they say the scientists took a chance with their findings, but going with the most extreme situations. that's their assessment. they say the next installment could in fact be something where the modeling might be somewhat different. that's the grab bag that's coming at us this weekend. alex, part of what is notable here is, what comes next? will there be policy prescriptions? changes? we don't know. we now the trump administration in its efforts through the epa, is trying to deregulate, which is not necessarily in line with these issues. the president himself says he

does not believe climate change is a hoax, which is different than some conservatives, but he also says he's not certain it's really the result of human involvement, that it could just be natural changes in our environment. alex? >> kelly o'donnell, thank you so much. next, the use of u.s. troops at the border. is president trump pushing the limits of the law? ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer.

and a complimentary first month's payment. jimmy's gotten used to his whole yup, he's gone noseblind. odors. he thinks it smells fine, but his mom smells this...

luckily for all your hard-to-wash fabrics... ...there's febreze fabric refresher. febreze doesn't just mask, it eliminates odors you've... ...gone noseblind to. and try febreze unstopables for fabric. with up to twice the fresh scent power, you'll want to try it... ...again and again and maybe just one more time. indulge in irresistible freshness. febreze unstopables. breathe happy.

we have the military at the border for the first time. i don't know if it's ever, but certainly there's not been a presence like this. if they have to, i've given authority for lethal force. i'm not going to let the military be taken advantage of. thousands of the troops spent their holiday deployed, including some at the southern border. john, i want to get your reaction to the president declaring troops on the southern border are authorized to use deadly force. >> well, once again, alex -- happy thanksgiving to you as well -- once again we have the

president saying one thing, and then members of his administration saying things that are slightly at odds. secretary mattis says they are not armed with lethal weapons. they ha batons and shields, plus the secretary of homeland security has not asked for troops. i think they're backing off and modifying what he said. in offering to use lethal force at the border, the president is potentially in violation of an 1878 law posse comitatus. and i would add one other thing.

before the break i caught a breaking "the washington post" story that says the members dan government has come into an agreement with the united states to hold migrants in mexico rather than letting them across the border. details still have to come, but that takes pressure off this pronouncement. >> an hour ago, the federal government of mexico had essential wiped their hands of it. it was the local government in tijuana trying to deal with this. it's been extremely challenging, because they haven't had the funds to do so. very good point, john. >> i read it literally at the

break, so there may be details that are not fleshed out yet. >> president trump has yet to visit troops overseas. "the washington post" reports that he has not done so because of fears over risk to his own life. you have defense secretary mattis saying he has advised against some trips, but the security matter, is it more of a concern than the morale question? other presidents has made trips to war zones. is he any more of a target that is previous presidents? >> not at all. as you'll recall when president bush or president obama or president clinton did, it was a surprise. all of a sudden they're missing from the white house and they show up somewhere. it's done secretly and with

enormous security, and they seldom go to the front lines. it's usually in a sort of bubble. it's something, having worked at the cia and having people in the field, and having been in the army myself years ago, it is a morale booster, and it's truly not a significant threat for the president. >> okay. let's switch gears and talk about saudi arabia. you know, the president was asked about the cia assessment that mbs likely ordered the assassination of jamal khashoggi. take a listen. unfortunately we don't have that sound bite, but look, john, you are the former acting director of the cia, former deputy director. how critical is the saudi role with helping the u.s. on potential terror? is it not worth alienating them?

>> well, frankly their role in counter-terrorism is complicated. just to give you some highlights, i would say before 9/11, i was in saudi arabia a couple times seeking their cooperation, didn't get it. they were not particularly cooperative in the early days after 9/11. in 2003, they had some serious attacks by al qaeda on their facilities in saudi arabia. i will say that turned them around. they became quite good partners on counter-terrorism over the years. recently i think the most noteworthy thing they contributed was advance noise of a plot in 2010, that had it been carried out, would have placed some cartridge bombs on fedex planes and other aircraft coming to the united states. they alerted us in advance to this.

it's a mixed bag, though, because at the same time the saudi royal family has literally thousands of princes. not all of them are fully under control of the family or the government. a number of them are protect donors to causes that contribute to terrorism. so there's a mixed picture. on the one hand they help us. on the other hand, through some of their programs, they sponsor extremist education and rhetoric around the world. we're constantsly trying to get that balance right. once other point i would make is that period where i'm talking about was under the previous crown prince, the person that the current prince displaced. he was basically the counter-terrorism chief of the country and frankly was a very good partner for the united states. i can't say with assurance that that is the case today.

it's a mixed bag, i would say and i would say broadly speaking they're not as important in the counter-terrorism realm as they were, say, 8 to 10 years ago. john, as you know there are many members of congress who have said -- in fact both parties, who want to takesageses against the saudis. what are the options for the president? bit your description, it sounds like he has to walk a fine line. >> again, saudi arabia is an important strategic ally. on the other hand i'm one of those who would say we're more important to them than they are to us. so i think we have leverage with saudi arabia. we have the potential to insist on certain conditions. i think we share many of their interests, but they don't share all of our values, and this killing, i think -- whether mohammed bin salman was involved

or not, and i think he was involved, it still is so at odds with our values and such a horrendous act i don't think they should get away scot-free on that. you say you believe that mohammed bin salman was involved. would the cia ever make public an assessment like this if they weren't pretty darn sure? >> well, i don't think it was -- let me say a few words about that. i used to put these things together. i doubt they made it publicly available. i think someone in the administration chose to do that, or in the congress. the cia doesn't reveal these things. but what it says, i'm confident it comes to a conclusion with high confidence that mohammed bin salman was involved. i haven't read the thing, but it's true in an assessment, here

is what we know and what we don't know. there will be nuances there that probably haven't been picked up in the press reporting, because whoever has leaked it, has just given the basic to have-line judgment. if you're in the administration and want to cast doubt on it, you can probably find something in it that gives you a wedge or an excuse to say, well, i have a different view. >> not definitive there, yeah. >> that said, that said, when they make an assessment and come to a conclusion like this, they are standing on ground that they regard as solid. >> john, thank you for this solid discussion. much appreciated. >> thank you, alex. why the next shoe to drop in the mueller problem may be about to happen. that's ahead.

jerome corsi telling nbc news he's in talks to cut a deal with robert mueller of course he says he was questioned about the release of john podesta's hacked e-mails. joyce, good to see you.

we're going to get into this. this has been percolating a bit. how big of a get is jerome corsi? >> first, it's important to remember what we are hearing right now is his version of the facts. we have not sealing any filing from the mueller team. it's also highly unusual for someone who is really involved in a cooperation agreement with prosecutors to be talking about it in the press. so i think it's important for us to remember that we have that caveat. if in fact it's true that corsi is close to concluding an agreement with prosecutors, it will be significant. he's a conspiracy theorist, not someone who it would be easy for prosecutors to cooperate with, and it will likely signal there's hard evidence to back up whatever it is he has to offer prosecutors. i say that because he's known for putting force these theories. he won't have the hallmark of

credible witnesses that prosecutors usually like to rely on. they'll have to have an extra increment of truth, whether it's documents or some other sort of physical evidence, but it would have to be lock solid for him to have value to prosecutors. a new york city judge has die need a request to completely throw out a lawsuit that alleges trump and the family violated charity laws, the way they were manages the personal found. trump's attorneys say the case should be dismissed because of the supremacy clause suggesting that a sitting president may not be sued. so talk about that and where it goes from here. >> trump has tried to maintain he can't be sued? civil courts, he can't be questioned in criminal courts, the presidency somehow insulates him from the legal process that

other citizens have to go through. now a judge in new york has said, at least in new york, that is not true. this is highly significant, because the acting attorney general barbara underwood has not been shy about bringing forth highly credible allegations about the president and his administration. this case is significant because it says the president and his children have used the family foundation like a personal checkbook, which would of course potentially violate at sorts of rules. >> what about "new york times" reporting this week that says the president wanted to order the doj to prosecute james comey and hillary clinton? the report goes to say that done mcgahn told the president that you have no authority, and them a memo was written that warned the president if he pursued it, it could have consequences including a possible impeachment.

can you categorize it as an abuse of power? >> i don't think we can overstate how serious there. one of the dividing lines between this government and other countries we wouldn't necessarily want to live in, we don't permit the president or other leaders to use the criminal justice system to punish his enemies. this is the president indicating he want to do direct prosecutors to put his enemies in prison. he wanted to direct the justice department to commence prosecution. that's incredibly serious. if push had come to shove on this one, prosecutors in doj, the career folks would have declined to go along if they believed it was wrong. ultimately this will need to be looked into very carefully. bob mueller might already be doing that. congress should certain do it when the new house comes into

session in january. a new article in "politico" is saying that mueller is not done with president trump, and still wants to question the president while in the white house. if true, what is that about? obstruction of justice? >> it's hard to believe that any prosecutor would be happy to written answers to questions they needed answered. so i don't think it should surprise any of us that he's interested in a conversation in personal with president trump. it seems like mueller's real path forward, if he wants to have this conversation, will be a subpoena, and with all of the uncertainty surrounding new acting attorney general matt whitaker and just how firmly he is in control of this investigation, with you don't know if that's something that will happen, but it seems

unlikely to mueller that these pivotal questions which, as you point out, would likely surround obstruction, that mueller's team will just go home if they really need these answers. >> joyce vance, good to see you, happy saturday. thanks for joining me. >> thanks for having me. wee ivanka trump's use of e-mails similar to hillary clinton? and if so, why did he get away with it so long? that's next.

have you talked to ivanka about her e-mails? >> i have, actually. very innocent, short period of time, very early on, there was no deletion every e-mails. there was no bleach bit. there was no anything. just innocent e-mails, no classified e-mails. i believe all of her records are in the historical society, the historical records. much different than the other situation i have talked about for a long time. president trump there defending again his daughter and senior adviser ivanka trump. an report earlier this week reported that she used a personal e-mails for -- >> so, then candidate, of course, made hillary clinton's e-mails a central component of his pan.

are you surprised? >> well, first of all, happy thanksgiving. it's good to be a part of your show, but i feed she did something student. i don't think there were any e-mails that had disappeared or were erased. she should come clean, say she was sorry, cooperate with everybody that's investigating, make sure the president's ability to protect his executive authority is security, so that lawyers are looking at it in the white house, but this was a rookie mistake. she was a rookie coming into government. we clearly had rules when i was chief of staff, saying you don't have your own private reports. they belong to the government. i suspect she was told that. i just don't think she did the right thing in following the

rules. it's not a big deal. it's very embarrassing, and it does look like she is participating in hi pockriesy, but hillary clinton's problem were different. she was conducting business on a private e-mail server. i think that was clearly wrong, too. the president called the troops for thanksgiving, but aired some grievances. >> you probably see over the news what's happening on our southern border. we got a lot of bad court decisions from the ninth circuit, which has become a big thorn in our side. it's a terrible things when judges take over your protective services. we find that it gets to the level where we are going to lose control or people are going to start getting hurt, with he will close entry into the country for

a period of time. the whole border. i mean the whole border. >> andy, he's talking about the border, talking about the ninth circuit court of appeals with troops serving abroad. what is this about? is this just his personal style? or should the americans expect that the president of the united states shouldn't be political when talking to troops deployed abroad on thanksgiving? >> well, i feel president trump really did abuse that phone call. he's the commander in chief. the troops that answer to his call to duty, he should respect and demonstrate great empathy and understanding what they're doing and compliment them for the sacrifices of time and commitment, never mind the potential to stand in harm's way. i don't think he played that well and made ha mistake. i think it's also inappropriate for him to criticize the judiciary.

they are an equal branch of government, and he should respect that. i they have chief justice john robert was right in calling him on it. the president did not do what i think is appropriate. we don't want to change the nature of the checks and balances that come from article 1, 2 and 3. he's article 2, congress is article i, he should respect article i, and in order for them to have respect for him. he's the personification of article ii in our constitution. >> just very quickly, before i let you go, the fact is you were instrumental in helping get john roberts appointed to the bench. the pushback, do you approve of that? >> i thought john roberts did a good job. number one, he did it responsibly. he is the head of article iii in

our constitution. he's the head of all of the federal judges. i thought it was appropriate to say the people were named by a president, confirmed by a senate, they give up their partisan label as soon as they take the oath of office. they don't make decisions based on politics or base odd emotion, they make decisions based on the law. they do it to the best of their ability. i think they all do it with a real firm commitment of belief they'll be doing what is right under the law, and not making partisan statements. >> thank you, andy card. always good to talk with you. what might be the most remarkable comment from the president this week, and what that says about him, next.

what does help for heart failure look like? ♪ the beat goes on. it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪ the beat goes on. it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪ la-di-la-di. entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart... so you can keep on doing what you love. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema,

low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪ the beat goes on. we're having a great family and for having made a tremendous difference in this country. i've made a tres difference nonetheless country. this country is so much stronger now. >> president trump responding to a question about what he's most thankful for, and remarks that

generated a flurry of headlines from the white house. a big welcome to the three of our guests. ashley, as we look at some of the other headlines from the president's thanksgiving holiday. he said he may force a government shutdown over the wall. he says he's authorized military lethal force on the border. he's assessed the cia report on khashoggi's killing, and there was a major climate change report released on friday. this question begs to be asked -- is it mostly negative?

>> oh, i think that's an interesting perspective. i, like most persons, who decided on a holiday that i was going to take a break from what was happening in the world and enjoy time with family and friends, apparently or president didn't do the same thing, instead thanked the country basically for giving him the gift of serving as president of the united states, which i think a majority of americans are not happy about. i would say to that point he doesn't have much of a record to stand on right now. you can talk about the economy all you want, but then you leash at the tariffs and the effect that's having, and plants shutting down. so i think there's a bit of mixed messaging, but this is par for the course for him, where he basically thinking he's god's gift to the united states of america. that message i think came across loud and clear on thanksgiving day when he made those comments, but again, this is nothing new from the president. this has been something that

since he took office, he has made clear that we should all be lucky that he's the president of the united states, but again i think we have a more divided america. we have definitely gotten to the point there's a lack of unity in politics, and that's all because of him. >> fatima, what stood out for you? >> the fact that he cannot make this entire thanksgiving about -- but also the divisive comments, like dismisses his own cia's report, the khashoggi murder, saying random things about how the military should be handling things at the border, which mattis had to put some water on that, even evoking the major case of chief justice

roberts having to say something in regards to his comments on the independent judiciary. it's been a week of him. >> joe, what's the top thing that stood out for you? >> maybe the government shutdown thing. we've seen that before. back in july there was a lot of talk from the white house, from the president, about his willingness to shut the government down over the border wall. now we hear it again. congress really only has ten working days to do something about it. and senator shelby and mcconnell, shelby head of senate proechgz commit year, and mcconnell majority leader in the senate, both not wanting a government shutdown, and nancy pelosi as well, she has to get her speaker's spot back, so he

doesn't have a lot of negotiating room. >> i think it comes down to honestly whether the senate republicans are going to lean into trumpism. they kind of avoided it this year because of the midterm elections, or trying to have a massive one, anyway. there was one for a few hours there. but i think it's a question of whether after the elections and seeing their rank sort of shellacked, as it were, especially on the outs side, whether they'll support the trumpism and what he wants to do. >> final word to you, ashley. your reaction to all of this? >> i think the president will continue tweeting and saying whatever he use like, but he does have significant issues. the one thing left out of the his tweets, ivanka's emalls. i do find that interesting. he's trying to avoid any

conflict there, but all the base of supporters chanting "lock her up" to hillary clinton, it will be interesting to see how the white house does tackle this. one of the many concerning things was the climate change report that came out that is pretty damning, and the president seems oblivious to it. so it will be interesting to see moving forward how he handles and weathers some of these storms. >> ashley, atima and joe, thank you. we'll start with you next time, joe. >> that's fine. reports of a deal being struck with the u.s. and mexico. we'll tell you exactly what that's about, next. ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together.

the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. to help you grow and protect your wealth. the community doesn't just have small businesses, it is small businesses. and that's why american express founded small business saturday. so, today, small business saturday, let's all get up, get out and shop small. i got croissant. shopping small, a small way to make a big difference.

74% italian. and i found out that i'm from the big toe of that sexy italian boot! so this holiday season it's ancestrydna per tutti! order your kit now at ancestry.com ♪ ♪ the united states postal service

makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪ this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments