that's the most important thing there is. what a great reminder of what the holiday spirit is supposed to be all about. >> you can tell what that, no, i don't, all of them. former president barack obama bringing cheer to those who could use it especially this time of year. that is our broadcast for this wednesday night. thank you so much for being here with us. good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. a lot of news, a lot to get to tonight. the president today, of course, decided to pull a rabbit out of a hat with a surprise announcement that he's ordering the u.s. military to pull out of syria entirely, immediately, all at once, right now. the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee is bob corker, a republican senator from tennessee. senator corker spoke to reporters today soon after the president pulled this rabbit out of a hat and made this surprise announcement.

and senator corker said as far as he could tell, not only had he and the foreign relations committee and the congress not been notified about this very big change in u.s. policy, not only had they not been notified about it or consulted about this in any way, he told reporters today that as far as he could tell from his conversations with the pentagon, the pentagon does not appear to have been consulted either. senator corker telling reporters today that as best he could tell, there was nothing that led up to this decision today. there was no process at all. the president just kind of got on twitter and burped it out. senator corker told reporters, though, that he was on his way over to the white house to meet with the president about this apparent snap decision that he made on his own. then a few hours later, senator corker spoke with reporters again and told him that his planned meeting with the president got canceled, and it got canceled while senator corker was already over there,

sitting there at the white house, waiting for that meeting to start. by the time white house officials were trying to explain the president's supposed order this afternoon, they realized that they could not answer even the most basic questions about what this is all about and what the president wants to happen. i mean, the really, really basic stuff, right? how many of the troops that are there now are coming home? when is this happening? if most of the troops are coming home, but not all of them, which ones will stay behind and why and what will they do and how is that going to work? i mean, one of the issues in a military withdrawal, even as civilians without military experience, you can see this, that if you're withdrawing from a situation where you've had a lot of troops there, but it's not a total withdrawal, you're leaving some small number of americans behind, you can see how those americans left behind are suddenly in a uniquely precarious and simultaneously

high-profile position. they're sort of in a dangerous spot. so these details really matter at a life and death level. everybody is leaving immediately all at once. are you sure? nobody's staying behind? the pentagon seems to indicate not everyone's going. what? i mean, if some smaller of americans is being left behind, when most of the rest are leaving all of a sudden, what are the rest of the troops being left there for. i know these are sort of hard questions, detailed questions, but this is the sort of thing that becomes immediately super important. at a life or death level for americans. if the president really did just order today the kind of withdrawal that he, surprise, proclaimed on twitter. so reporters went to the white house today looking to get questions like those answered. even just to get the most basic questions answered about this big, sudden u-turn from the president. where did this come from, why now, is everybody on board, you

got a plan? when reporters went to the white house to ask questions about this today, white house staff said they could not answer those questions themselves. and they referred reporters to the pentagon. they said go ask the defense department. reporters who contacted the defense department, however, were told that the defense department also could not answer those questions because they frankly had no idea what the president was talking about with this new order. so the pentagon referred reporters back to the white house to try to get those questions answered. so the white house said, the president announces it, everybody is like, dude, what now, huh? the white house says we don't know, ask the defense department. the defense department says we don't know, ask the white house. which is ridiculous and absurd. and just for us as citizens, it is remarkable to see our government and our president overtly bungling something this serious. something this important, just trying to hum a few bars and

hope somebody else figures out what this means and what people are supposed to do here. it's ridiculous, absurd, right? it feels that way to everybody observing this process, including people who are allies of the president like republicans on capitol hill. but if you're an american military family tonight, if you have a family member serving in syria tonight, and a couple thousand american families are in that situation, because there are a couple thousand americans serving in syria right now, i cannot imagine how unnerving today must have been for you. watching this white house, watching this president just try to blag through this. i mean, imagine if you have skin in the game in your family here. i mean, whether or not you are for or against an ongoing u.s. military presence in syria, or even if you don't particularly know one way or the other, this is not the way that u.s. troops and their families expect to have their safety and their lives just blithely batted around like it doesn't matter and who cares

what happens and maybe we'll just do the whole thing on twitter and who knows if we'll follow through, who cares? ask the white house for details, no, ask the pentagon for details. no, apparently nobody has any details. the president is just winging this one. does he mean it if it's on twitter, does it count? if he is just winging it with the life of your son or your daughter or your husband or wife over there in uniform right now, it's been a spectacle for all of us. but if you are in a personal situation with regard to that conflict right now, this must have been a very difficult day. but we're going to get some expert help on this story coming up in just a few minutes. i do have to tell you, the administration and the president appear to have put so little thought and so little planning, if any planning at all, into this announcement today that it literally, as i speak, is not even clear at this point if the pentagon is planning on this withdrawal. if the pentagon is planning on doing whatever it is that the president has supposedly ordered, if they can figure out what that order is. because of that lack of clarity

tonight, that alone i think is good reason to expect that this story is going to continue to develop over the course of the evening and into the overnight. so as i said, we'll get some expert help on that tonight. we have a fatter from the armed services committee tonight and a reporter who will be here with us to try to get more clarity on this story. all right. and by -- self-conscious about this. but by counterposing that story that i just talked about with this next bit of news that we're about to get to, i do not mean to suggest that the president popped out that surprise out of the blue announcement on syria today as an effort to change the news cycle to something that is less damaging to him than what he has been going through in recent days. i'm not trying to suggest that by putting these two stories together at the top of the show. but it is inescapable that the overall news cycle right now is just calamitous for the

president in terms of scandals and investigations swirling around him and some of the people closest to him. it is very bad right now for the president, and with each passing day, including today, it does seem to be continuously devolving. so on that front we need to start with some news with someone i almost always ignore. it's convenient top of to have a whole s.w.a.t. of news that, yeah, i don't cover that. but this is the story that broke in "the washington post," and it is about roger stone. who is a longtime friend and adviser to the president. he worked on behalf of and adjacent to the president's campaign in 2015 and 2016. now, i say i usually ignore stories about him, and i don't mean that in a mean way. i'm conscious of the fact that mr. stone likes to see himself on tv and hikes to see himself in print. he likes press attention, he talks about that. he talks about seeking press attention as often as he can.

there are lots and lots of news stories about him all the time. even about his alleged very troubling role in the russia scandal, but 99.9% of the time, those stories essentially boil down to, roger stone says thing. so? and depending on how long you can bear reading into the story, you eventually get to thing does not appear to be true. it's sort of implied with roger stone. so we don't generally cover those stories on this show. i'm just not interested. i mean, i would maybe like to. it just makes me itch, it makes me crazy, like we cannot do it. anyway, it's sort of a categorical situation for me. stories about roger stone, do not do. but this tonight in "the washington post," this is something real that you actually should know about. so the lead reporter is carol lennig, and this is the lead.

quote, special counsel robert mueller and the special counsel's office have asked for the official transcript of roger stone's testimony? it's the first time he has formalry asked the compete to turn over material. now, what does it mean that robert mueller and the special counsel's office have asked for the official transcript of roger stone's testimony? well, according to "the washington post" tonight, quote, the move suggests the special counsel is moving too finallyize a key part of mueller's inquiry into whether anyone in president trump's orbit coordinated with the russians. if you want to put a finer point on it, "the washington post" just straight up goes there, calling this request from mueller to obtain this transcript "a sign that prosecutors could be moving to charge mr. stone with a crime." >> so big picture story just

necessary step before pursuing an indictment that stone allegedly lied to lawmakers. charges of lying to congress are relatively rare, but last month michael cohen pled guilty to just such a charge as part of the special counsel's investigation. the special counsel could use the threat of a false statement charge to seek cooperation from mr. stone as mueller has done with other trump advisers, including former trump national security adviser michael flynn and mr. cohen. so big picture story just broken tonight by "the washington post" is that they have learned, the post has learned and nbc news has confirmed that the post has learned that the special counsel's office, robert mueller, has made an official request to get an official transcript of roger stone's testimony before the congress about russian interference in the election. so this is not roger stone says thing. this is an action that has been reportedly taken by the special counsel's office. and here's the part of this that i definitely didn't know, and i

didn't understand before i read this story tonight. to me this is fascinating. maybe everybody knows this stuff. maybe the nuts and bolts of how exactly you get charged with a felony for lying to congress are stuff that gets talked about at your staff holiday party where you work. to me this was totally new. i did not know this before tonight. quote, for weeks the special counsel's office has had access to an unofficial copy of mr. stone's closed door interview with the committee in september 2017. mueller's request of the official copy suggests that the special counsel could in and out be pursuing an indictment. why is that? why does he need the official copy rather than just the unofficial copy that he's been working from? quote, in general, if prosecutors want to bring a charge of lying to investigators, they must obtain a certified clean copy from the transcriber or clerk who took the statement in order to present it as an exhibit to a grand jury. quote, because the roger stone interview was conducted in

executive session with house intelligence committee, the transcript of his remarks officially belongs to the committee and may not be released to anyone. unless authorized by the committee. so basically robert mueller does know at least roughly, unofficially, what roger stone's testimony was. that closed-door testimony that he gave in the fall of 2017. but you can't bring an unofficial transcript to the grand jury if you want that grand jury to give you an indictment based, in part, on that evidence. you need the official record of his remarks if you're going to bring it to the grand jury for the purposes of diagnostic him. i did not know that. getting the official transcript turns out in this case kind of takes a village. it takes the committee to agree to hand it over. quote, according to people with knowledge of the situation, the house intelligence committee has not yet turned over the official stone transcript to special counsel mueller. but "the washington post" reports tonight that they are gflgt to deal with this

tomorrow. quote, the committee is expected to discuss the topic at a closed door business session scheduled for thursday, i.e., tomorrow. an agenda for the meeting shows the panel's first item to consider is the, quote, transmission of certain executive session materials to the executive branch. so executive session materials, that means materials from a closed door session. they have to discuss tomorrow, first order of business, whether they are going to transmit that transcript, those materials, to the executive branch, which, according to "the washington post," is the special counsel's office. and since the special counsel's office already has the unofficial transcript, presumably the only reason they need the official one is, because -- so most news about this adviser to the president, this long-time friend of the president roger stone, you can just file in a folder marked news about roger stone, right? you don't need to get any more specific about it. but this tonight from "the washington post," if they're right in this report, this would seem to indicate that the special counsel is taking the last procedural steps they need to in order to perhaps bring

charges here. now, the fact that congressman devin nunes is convening that closed-door intelligence completing committee meeting to decide whether or not robert mueller can have that congressman, as adam schiff of california waits to take over nunes job as the new democratic chairman in a couple weeks, that adds some real kinetic force to the story and obviously some angular politics. if mueller doesn't get that transcript tomorrow, he'll get it as soon as schiff is there. so this story tonight from "the washington post" suggests that there is something else likely coming from the special counsel here. and you don't know it until you see it when it comes to the special counsel, but that's what this strongly suggests. keep in mind, we have already seen what appears to be a draft plea agreement from the special counsel for what appears to have been a guilty plea negotiation that apparently fell apart, involving the obama birth

certificate conspiracy guy, whose name is jerome coursy. from that draft plea agreement from jerome corsi, it would appear that his own potential criminal exposure is related to some of the same communications during the campaign that have brought scrutiny to roger stone. communications involving wikileaks and wikileaks' distribution of e-mails and documents that were stolen by the russian military, by russian military intelligence from democrats and from the clinton campaign, to be weaponized against her campaign on behalf of donald trump. since we saw that draft plea agreement related to jerome corsi, we haven't seen any further action in the courts that appears directly related to him, but presumably with that draft plea agreement, having been rejected and what we're now seeing with request to this transcript, it all feels like that is coming to a fine point. but there is more that you should know about, including more that happened today. this is something that happened

today that i don't think has received a lot of attention. for me, this was a reward for always following my court documents rule, which is always read to the very end, often times the best stuff is at the very end. this is something didn't get a lot of attention today. it is pretty clearly a new thing, another new thing that is coming down the pike, potentially from federal prosecutors. i will tell you about it, next. stay with us. i got beaten within an inch of my life because i was different. [ grunts ] it's a hate crime. so, i created a world where i could be anyone i want. this is hoagie, kind of a braver versions of me. we're one in the same pal. i walk in your shoes. ♪ i got dreams in my head... ♪ you need to face those jerks who beat you up. i'm not really sure how to do this. if i can be a hero, so can you. yee-haw! opportunity is everywhere.

like here. where nothing stands between you and your best friends. ♪

voice-command navigation with waze wifi wireless charging 104 cubic feet of cargo room and seating for 8. now that's a sleigh. ford expedition. built for the holidays. and for a limited time, get zero percent financing plus twelve hundred and fifty dollars ford credit bonus cash on ford expedition.

ford credit bonus cash 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 in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

last week, it feels like a million years ago, doesn't it? but it was just last week that accused russian agent maria butina pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in federal court in washington, d.c., just a remarkable turn in that case. she becomes the first russian national to plead guilty in conjunction with charges related to russian influence on u.s. politics. but after she pled guilty, you may not have heard about this, but a very unusual thing, a super, super unusual thing happened in her case over the weekend. it was a mistake. a document that was apparently supposed to be sealed, it was supposed to be completely shielded from public view was accidently posted online by the court in an unredacted form. and i guess the court realized or prosecutors realized what they had done ultimately and

quickly took it down. but while that document was up for that short period of time, report spencer shuh at "the washington post" was able to grab it and screen shot it, at least the first page of it, of this document. again, that was supposed to be sealed. but let me just read you what it said. you can see it at the top, under seal, and this is just the few first sentences. of what that filing says. the united states of america by and through its attorney, the u.s. attorney for the district of colombia its motion for authorization of transportation in the above referenced base. that's not a legal term of art in this case, they literally mean transportation. quote, the motion discusses appending criminal investigation and matters occurring between the parties that should not appear in the public record.

although the fact of defendant maria butina's cooperation is now public, the details of her transportation to and from the jail are not. the disclosure of such information would pose a risk to the defendant's safety and the safety of the community. once disclosed, such information could be used by individuals or entities who might seek to harm or intimidate the defendant to defend her from continuing to cooperate with law enforcement. in this document we don't get the details of her transportation, we just get the government's argument that those details should not be made public. but now get this -- quote, nation the proposed order references defendant butina's possible transportation to a grand jury. the fact of her testimony before a grand jury is protected under rule 6 of the federal rules of criminal procedure and should remain confidential. she's testifying to a grand jury? so, again, this was not supposed to be posted in a way the public could see it, but it was. and washington post reporter

spencer shuh was able to grab it, and we learned that one of the things that happened since maria butina pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors is that already she's not just talking to prosecutors, but already they've got her being transported from jail to testify in person before a grand jury in what the prosecutors described as ongoing criminal investigations. remember, she was charged as basically undeclared secret agent of the russian government operating in this country to influence our politics, specifically the republican party through the nra, what might she know about, might she have evidence about that they've got her providing evidence to the grand jury about? i don't know. but since that document was posted by accident, and then quickly unposted this weekend, there's been a little more back and forth in the case. her defense lawyers argued to the judge that the gag order should be lifted on her case, and the gag order basically says that judges -- excuse me, that the judge has told the defense

counsel and the prosecutors that they're not allowed to speak publicly or to the press about what's going on in butina's case, and her lawyers said drop the gag order, we would like to speak about this publicly. today prosecutors sontd to that and said from their perspective, no, they want the judge to keep the gag order in place. now, on the surface, this is just an argument about a procedural matter. on the surface, though, the prosecutor's argument doesn't really make much sense. if you think about it, the purpose of a gag order, the purpose of a judge saying no, people involved in this case are not allowed to talk about this outside of the courtroom, no comments to the press or to the public, the reason for a gag order is mostly to avoid creating a prejudicial public environment around a case, about the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a case where that person is going to go to trial before a jury. so a gag order can prevent the jury pool for that jury trial from being tainted, because the jury will have heard public

comments about the case. for maria butina, she just pled guilty. so she's not going on trial. there's not going to be a jury that has to be selected to rule on her guilt or innocence. she pled guilty. so why would you still need the gag order, what's the justification for it? that's what we just got from the prosecutors in her case tonight, and this is interesting. first of all, they say there's a chance that maria butina's plea deal might fall apart, which they would put her on trial. quote, although the government has no reason to expect the defendant will breach the plea agreement, if the event she does she will be subject to prosecution from other crimes. there is a chance however small that the government could proceed to trial on the indictment or some portion thereof. given that possibility, they continue.

quote, while the government again has no reason to believe the defendant will attempt to withdraw her plea prior to sentencing -- >> so they're raising these possibilities. maybe her plea agreement is going to fall apart, and there will be a trial. but then here's the money. here's the whoop, heads up from the federal prosecutors who are handling the butina case to say hey, there's something else going on here. and, again, her case is being handled by the u.s. attorney in d.c., specifically by the national security division in that office. here's their closing argument to the judge.

they have italicized the word imminent and added the emphasis themselves. >> so respectfully submitted, leave the gag order in place, judge, because here comes some more defendants. between that briefly unsealed document about her going to

testify to the grand jury and this document we got tonight from the prosecutors in her case, what this would appear to indicate because the prosecution side in the maria butina case is that the case is not only about her being indicted. that in that words, quote, imminently other criminal litigation involving other defendants may soon be charged in connection with this matter." so that all happened today. "the washington post" reports tonight that roger stone, umm, the special counsel's office has asked requested an official transcript of roger stone's testimony to the house intelligence committee, which is something that they would not need, since they have an unofficial transcript anyway. they would only need the official transcript, legal experts say, if they needed to take that document to the grand jury for the purposes of securing an indictment. so that seems to be final stages on a long-time adviser to the president, roger stone. similarly in the butina case, the prosecutors are talking about the imminent possibility

of other defendants related to this case, particularly those who may be charged as a result of the defendant's cooperation. that all happened today. and that doesn't even get into the fact that also today, something was filed in the michael cohen case, which was filed under seal, and they didn't screw it up. and in his case, the court noted that that file was "placed in vault." [ laughter ] which means today we all learned that there's a vault at the federal courthouse in new york that's hearing the cohen case, and they have some cohen stuff in the vault. even though he's already been sentenced to three years in federal prison, there are more sealed documents being filed with the court in conjunction with michael cohen, including one filed today. we have no idea what it is, but we know they locked it up as soon as they got it. so stay sober. keep your laces tied. we apparently are still really in the middle of this. we'll be right back.

kayla: our dad was in the hospital. josh: because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. kayla: do you know how hard it is to smoke in a hospital? by the time we could, we were like... what are we doing? kayla: it was time for nicodermcq. the nicodermcq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. and doubles your chances of quitting. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how.

we've shown just how far love can go.e the love event, (grandma vo) over one hundred national parks protected. (mom vo) more than fifty thousand animals rescued. (old man vo) nearly two million meals delivered. (mom vo) over eighteen hundred wishes granted. (vo) that's one hundred and forty million dollars donated to charity by subaru and its retailers over eleven years. (girl) thank you. (boy) thank you. (old man) thank you. (granddaughter) thank you.

'tand in your garage,son a brand new john deere. that's not a mirage. with 60 months financing at 0%, say "happy holidays" to money well spent. if additional offers are what you desire, visit your john deere dealer before they expire. now, start up your engines and drive out of sight. new john deere equipment for all and to all a good night. see your john deere dealer today to discover more great deals and special financing offers. new year, new deere. sfx: stair creak sfx: clink sfx: deep breath sfx: grunt sfx: tinny headphone music sfx: feet shuffling sfx: slice sfx: gasp sfx: inhale. exhale. sfx: lights scraping on roof sfx: metallic scrape sfx: grunt covered california. it's more than just health care. it's life care.

the pentagon seemed caught off guard. as of this morning, officials in the pentagon were reportedly scrambling to try to talk the president out of doing this. when the president tweeted the announcement anyway, the white house referred reporters to the pentagon to get details on the withdrawal plan, but the pentagon didn't have any details. the pentagon referred all questions back to the white house, and they said, didn't we tell you to go ask the pentagon? at the state department, they just decided they didn't want to

talk about it at all and abruptly canceled its scheduled press briefing today right after trump made this announcement about pulling all u.s. troops out of syria. nbc reporter courtney cuby asked a senior administration official today what the president means specifically by making this announcement, when does this mean u.s. troops are leaving? this was the response she got. quote, it's not that i'm not telling you, it's that i don't know quite frankly. helpful senior administration official. so we don't know if the surprise withdrawal is a thing that's going to happen. we certainly don't know when it's going to happen, if it is. but why did this happen all of a sudden? why did this just get announced? and i ask that because on its face, the explanation the president gave is an explanation that's not true. i mean, the president today said, isis is gone, that's why we can leave. they've been defeated. well, the inspector general at

the defense department just last month released a report on the current strength of isis as of last month, the estimate for isis fighters was 20,000 to 30,000 fighters just in iraq and syria. so it's not that the u.s. government has determined that isis is defeated, they're gone, therefore it's time to go. that's the explanation the president gave, but that's not true. so what was it? "the wall street journal" and others have suggested that this happened today at the request of a foreign leader, at the request of the president of turkey. which is rich, right? i mean, the day after trump national security adviser mike flynn gets dragged all over a federal courtroom for, in the judge's words, basically betraying his country, selling out his country by working as a paid foreign agent for turkey, two days after the turkish government contract got indicted for that scheme, the day after prosecutors described mike flynn in open court as an unindicted co-conspirator in that crime,

amid all these questions now circling around the flynn case about why the trump transition didn't care and when -- went ahead and installed flynn as national security adviser anyway, even after they were formally and repeatedly warned about flynn being investigated as an unregistered paid foreign agent for turkey, that's the day the president of turkey says hey, trump, pull out of syria now. and the president of our country says yes, sir, i'll announce it right now, sir? i mean, the on the surface explanation from the president is not true. the other possible explanations for this, the ones being reported today in the news, are really dark. just when it comes to turkey, just one of the countries that would have want us out of syria. the other countries that would want us out of syria are the syrian government, iran, russia. russia for its part says that they are delighted by this blurted out new policy from

president trump today. but what can we know at this point as to -- whether this is really happening? and why this is really happening? but also what it's likely to do, if this does actually become real policy and not just something the president tweeted and then everyone ignored? joining us now is a foreign correspondent for "the new york times" and has been covering al qaeda and isis. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, rachel. >> so i know that you have -- you have reported both in syria and iraq, i know you were just in iraq a couple of weeks ago. >> yes. >> bottom line, what do you think the impact would be in syria, in syria, and specifically with regard to isis, if the president's announcement is real, if they do follow through with this sort of precipitous withdrawal plan? >> let me quote what senior western coalition officials told me today when i reached out to them to ask this very question. they described the president's announcement as "catastrophic, a

disaster, reckless." this is how they view this announcement. the kurds, when i last traveled with them, which was back in 2015, were not able to move an inch without u.s. support. they would take building after building, but only after u.s. air support had helped them bomb that location. if the u.s. was not there, they would not have been able to advance. and even with u.s. support, we have seen that isis has been able to mount counterattack after counterattack and sometimes take back territory that has been declared freed. so it's naive to think that this in any way is going to not have an impact on the fight against isis. >> so big picture here, we should just be clear for people who haven't been following this or that have lost track over this eight-year-long civil war. there's a couple thousand u.s. troops in syria. their stated mission there is to fight isis. the way that u.s. troops are fighting isis in syria is in

partnership with the kurds, and partnership with kurdish fighters who are believed by the u.s. military to be the most effective anti-isis force on the ground. and if the u.s. forces are going to leave is devastation for the kurds. >> right. >> and that raises the issue of why this is happening. there are multiple news organizations reporting that the origin of this decision didn't come from an inner agency process in the u.s. government certainly didn't come from the u.s. military or people working on this as policy. it appears to have come in a suggestion from the turkish president. what's the relationship between the turkish government, the turkish president and the kurds? why might this have been in his interest? >> the turkish state has viewed the kurds has an existential threat. the group that's currently fighting isis is a conglomeration of kurdish entities, one is the ypg, or the pkk, declared a terrorist

organization by turkey. they have carried out attacks in turkey. and so for a long time now, we have seen that the turkey views this entity as its number one enemy in the region. >> foreign correspondent for "the new york times" covering al qaeda and isis, i really appreciate your time. thank you very much for this. >> thank you, rachel. zblishd tell you that nancy pelosi put out a statement tonight on the withdrawal of troops from syria. i'll just read you a piece that's important and relevant. to this discussion. quote, all americans should be concerned that this hasty announcement was made after sentencing against michael flynn who admitted he was a registered agent with the clear interest in the syrian conflict. the clear interests in the syrian conflict as just laid out there by rack mini. senator claire mccaskill is here tonight. very excited to have her here. stay with us. ith us i just got my cashback match,

is this for real? yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover. and just like you, the further into winter we go, the heavier i get. and while your pants struggle to support the heavier you, your roof struggles to support the heavier me. [laughter] whoo. [crash] and your cut-rate insurance might not pay for this. so get allstate, you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands? a peaceful night sleep without only imagine...

frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? everything was so fresh in the beginning... but that plug quickly faded. luckily there's new febreze plug. it cleans away odors and freshens for 1200 hours. breathe happy with new febreze plug. always a catch. like somehow you wind up getting less. but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks. i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay.

she's been a county prosecutor, a state representative, her state's auditor, she's been a u.s. senator now for 12 years. she's perhaps the only democratic senator under the age of 70 who is not apparently about to announce that she's running for president. she has always been someone personal privilege here, she's always been someone who i could imagine very easily in the job of president. i have thought that for years. but apparently she's not running. she is, though, leaving washington, and so i came down here today from new york to make sure i could talk to her before she went back home. senator claire mccaskill of missouri, thank you for doing this. >> it's great to be here. this is a perfect last live interview as a senator. >> i thought about bringing a beer and telling you it was okay to swear. >> shotgun it? >> but i have a feeling i don't need to loosen you up that much. you seem like you're kind of psyched to be -- >> probably not. i'm ready. >> i have a bunch of stuff to ask you about leaving the senate.

i do have to ask you a news question, particularly because your role on the armed services committee. what is your reaction to the surprise announcement of the president today on syria? he's saying all u.s. troops out immediately. it's clear from the pentagon and senator corker, there appears to have been no process leading up to this at all. what's your take on it? >> wildly irresponsible, very dangerous. this is one of the most complicated places in the world. the cross currents in syria are so significant. we have the kurds, who have made our victories possible. they have fought shoulder to shoulder, they have died on the battlefield, with american military to defeat isis. and we are leaving them twisting in the wind by leaving. we were the balance, even though there were only 2,000 people, it was a balance that kept turkey kind of at bay, and also was a caution to iran and to russia, and to assad.

it's not so much that he's pulling, it's the way he's doing it, with complete disregard for the complexities that are involved, without talking to our allies, without having a plan, without trusting the military leaders that have been telling him for months don't do something rash here, but because his politics need something rash right now. >> uh-huh. >> that's why he's doing this. that's what is most disturbing that he is making these irresponsible and impulsive decisions in the context of our military involvement around the world. pretty scary stuff. >> you're suggesting this is a wag the dog decision to change the news cycle? >> and he's getting heat from his base that he folded on the wall and he's preoccupied with his rallies and what he told everyone, that mexico would build it, he would get a wall. and he also said, i'm going to bring people home from all these entanglements from around the world. so he's saying i'm in trouble

because i folded on the wall, so i'll do this thing that i promised i would do, damn the consequences. i need to somehow repair my political image in terms of being strong and decisive. that's what is so disappointing about this, because he puts a lot at risk. and the men and women who died there deserve better. >> the president acting in those terms to me, that would make sense if what we had seen was the president pushing this issue at the white house, raise thing issue, telling people that wanted to do this, he's every once in a while he talks about this. but as far as we can tell, there was no process leading up to this. he just did blurt it out, leaving the state department and pentagon flummoxed. even senior administration officials who were put out to explain, they had no idea what he was talking about. what i am particularly worried about is this reporting that this idea of the president came directly from the president of turkey. with whom he spoke with just several days ago.

what you were just talking about with the kurds, the president of turkey would like nothing more than to have the united states military out of the way so he can mow down the kurds, because they're so threatening to him and his domestic needs. i mean, i'm worried about the prospect that the president has made this decision at the behest of a foreign government. i don't know how we figure out whether that's true or what the consequences should be if that happened. >> i think the way to kind of look at it, he's surrounded himself with people to advise him. and either they're being indicted or they're being ignored. so what is the point of attracting people with any kind of working knowledge of the subject matter, especially in something as complex as what's going on in the middle east, particularly in syria? if you were going to completely ignore them, including the hawk of all hawks when it comes to iran, bolton. bolton just said a few weeks go

we're not going to let iran have that kind of power in syria. >> he said we will not leave, the u.s. military presence in syria won't end as long as iran still has troops on the border. iran still has troops on the border and that's no longer -- i >> nevermind. >> you talk about stuff like this, teen really hard stuff, i can see your wheels turning and you get really into it and i'm simultaneously sensing your relief at getting out of here. are you happy you're no longer going to be a senator? >> let's be honest i'm a really competitive person. i hate to lose. it sucks. and i lost. and i don't like losing. having said that, i see people who stay here too long. the place has gotten pretty dysfunctional. i think i can move the needle on things i care about and i don't have to be in this town. i think there's ways i can influence things and i'm looking forward to doing some of that work on the other side when i'm not busy worrying about the pressures of running in a really tough state.

for someone who believes in the values that i hold, i couldn't ever make my friends in the progressive base completely happy. i certainly couldn't make the right happy, and it's tough. it's tough because you want to hold true to your principles but you want to be pragmatic enough if you can get things done. i'm worried about my party that we don't get so enamored with purity that we lose the fact that if independent voters in this country do not vote for democrats, we will not win the presidency, and we will not win states in the midwest. >> i want to talk to you a little bit about that and your own presidential decision making process and all this when we come back. we're with senator claire mccaskill of missouri. this is her last live interview as a united states senator. we'll be right back with her after this. k with her after this

(pirate girl) ahoy!!!!! (excited squeal, giggling/panting) gotcha! (man) ah! (girl) nooooooooooooo! (man) nooooo!

(girl) nooooo... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker, and is two times more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. (man and pirate girl) ahoy! (laughing) (vo) bounty, the quicker picker upper.

joining us once again is senator claire mccaskill for her last live interview as a senator. obama, jfk, and j. harding were the only u.s. presidents who have ever gone to white house directly from the u.s. senate and yet for some reason every senator under the age of 80 is a potential democratic presidential candidate this year. having been 12 years in the senate, do you think it makes sense that that is a good place

from which to if i can democratic bench? >> well, there's certainly smart capable people there. having said that the american voter right now is -- in case you haven't noticed, they're really not very high on washington. >> yeah. >> this is not their favorite spot and congress is not seen as like the folks they want to rely on. so i do think anybody that is of washington has an extra high bar to make it through this process. i think somebody who feels different, who is inspirational, who can convince people they can change something and that frankly because of what we've got going on in the oval office, who shows character and stability, i think that's what those voters that decide presidentials, those ones in the middle, that's what they gravitate towards. >> did you ever seriously think about running? >> no, >> why not? >> i was really fortunate to be close to the obama campaign. i was kind of in it, so to speak, and i saw it and, wow, really hard and really not fun.

and really flawed process. and it just really kind of cured me of wanting to be in that kind of fray. i still want to try to get things done, and i'm proud of what i've gotten done here, but i'm not really interested in running for elected office again. >> how much did it bug you when jerky liberals like me gave you a hard time for being more conservative than the rest of the democratic party on some issues? did it actually -- >> you mean when you brought the life-size cutout of blanch lincoln? >> yeah and i put her in a big envelope -- >> come on, rachel. >> but is that like off the duck's back? >> no, it's off the duck's back. i get it. but here's the thing. on lots of issues i was really solid that are progressive issues. womens reproductive freedoms, health care issues, not perfect on environment but certainly

better than the vast majority of people who hold elected office in my state. and at the end of the day i'm really somebody who enjoys getting things done. and screaming pure progressive politics on one side of the room does not get people to the middle and actually accomplish things. we only accomplish things, the tough stuff only gets fixed if we take tough votes and we compromise. >> but is it constructive to have criticism both from the right and the left especially for somebody who's really like a die hard moderate like you, like you are ideological idiosyncratic. you're mix of progressive and modern. >> right. >> is it always hurtful to get that pressure? is it constructive? >> i think it's tine. i'm really lucky to be a public servant and in politics for 38 years in a state like missouri. i feel fortunate. and people are passionate and i love it when they are passionate.

>> but it sometimes drives you crazy, admit it. >> well, sometimes it's counter productive. >> that's what i want to hear. >> like this year there were some folks in missouri that were chewing on me because i wasn't loud enough on certain issues -- >> loud enough on lefty issues. >> and i was trying to explain to them like there's some issues like the macaroni and cheese issues, like dignity of a job, and real wage increases and real affordable health care issues that are fortune working people in urban and rural areas, and those are the issues i needed to focus on. >> you wanted to put that in the center. >> i wanted that to be the center because that's where i knew most people would agree. and i did all those town halls out in rural area, that's where everybody's head would nod. and i think that's the way forward in this country to actually solve some of these problems. you know, we can talk about free college until the cows come home, but you're not going it get 60 votes in the senate for free college to happen. >> you'll get it someday if you

start talking about it now. >> it's fine to start talking about it now, but the point is to win in 2020 we better be talking about things that everybody relates to that, that everybody is worried about and really those economic issues that are keeping people awake at night. >> now you get to do whatever you want. >> i can do whatever i want, and my mouth's has gotten me in some trouble and i figure i can take it to new heights now. >> and thanks for being a public servant for all these years and so much fun to talk to along with being so serious about your work. that does for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. and i met claire mccaskill i think right at the beginning of her senate campaign, probably right before she formally announced it and what she wanted to talk to me about was how the senate worked. she didn't want to talk about campaign stuff, poll, how you're going to do it. she was looking forward to when she got the job, what is the best way to do that