we ran out of time, but i want to thank betty, jonathan, ashley and -- who else was sitting there? karine, my beloved karine. thank you most of all to you for watching. "mtp daily" with my friend chuck todd starts now. welcome to tuesday, it's "meet the press daily," i'm chuck todd. we have some breaking news on the house impeachment inquiry and breaking news that will probably get lost amid the impeachment chaos. but in any other presidency it

would dominate the news cycle and for good reason. this afternoon, the senate intelligence committee put out a bipartisan report about russia's interference in the 2016 election via a massive social media campaign. quote, harming hillary clinton's chances of success and supporting donald trump. this is a bipartisan senate report that reinforces robert mueller's key findings in a moment where the president and the lawyer is recruiting northern governments to try to distract from the president's efforts to dig up dirt on his possible 2020 opponent. those efforts to interfere in the 2020 election are now the focus on an impeachment inquiry where the evidence continues to mount and public opinion shows possible signs of moving. according to our new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll, a combined 55% of the country supports the president's either removal from office completely or supports the inquiry. 24% say there is enough evidence right now to remove the

president from office. 31% support the impeachment investigation. 39% do not support impeachment. this inquiry has been open for exactly two weeks and there is slightly more appetite to pursue impeachment on ukraine than there was in the wake of mueller's final report after two years of the russia investigation. that does tell you something. does that mean we've hit the ceiling of support for impeachment or is this the floor democrats are starting with? this is going to be a long process. so, take all this public opinion, almost as a starting line. bottom line, there is public appetite to hear the case. a lot of people want more evidence before making up their mind. not an illogical way for the public to respond. more importantly, blocking evidence ended up being the big news today in the impeachment inquiry. a key state department official who has been accused of trying to hide a quid pro quo involving the president and ukraine was blocked from testifying before congress today. he's been subpoenaed.

let's go to our correspondents in washington. garrett, let me start with you and the no-show of gordon sondland and the subpoena. the house seemed to be blindsided today, frankly, it wasn't surprised that the white house blocked, i guess the surprise was they waited until the very last minute. >> yeah, the surprise was in the timing. we knew he traveled back from brussels to washington, d.c. to make this deposition. the letter that was read out this morning said it was essentially the state department's call this morning, early this morning, to not go forward with this testimony. this has become standard practice, essentially, for the white house, and chuck, i can tell you, it will apparently be even more so, because as i'm standing here, i just heard that speaker pelosi has received a letter from the white house council outlining the white house's complaints about this inquiry, the long and short of it, it's a nine-page letter.

didn't have time to read the whole thing. the white house will not be cooperating with what they see is an illegitimate probe. so, i suspect this will be the new normal for house democrats and this inquiry. >> i want to get to kristin and that news today, but you know, on earth 2, it would be a significant finding if a bipartisan group of united states senators came out to reinforce a finding that the president's personal attorney has been trying to undermine for the last three months and yet it seems as if the senate intelligence social media report has been met with crickets. what are you hearing on the hill, garrett? >> well, almost nothing. and i think it's a confusing choice to release it this week, with none of the members on the hill to even discuss it. this is the kind of thing that was worked on by a bipartisan committee in a serious effort for going on two years now. i suspected that when they did ultimately release this they

would do this with a little bit more fanfare than to drop it in the middle of a week in which congress is out. >> it's almost intentional. they are burying what is, again, this is, now republican confirmation, if you want to call it that, because of how many republicans are apart of this and richard burr ran this, of everything that mueller said when it came to what russia's intentions were. >> that's exactly right. it's richard burr's name at the top of this report, as the leader of the senate intelligence committee. i mean, everybody on the senate side looked at their investigation as the -- the varsity investigation of russian interference when it comes to the congressional probes here. this is a serious by-product of that and it's gotten no oxygen. it's hard to imagine it gets more next week, when members of congress are back and we're six days down the road on the impeachment inquiry. >> look, it's why i wanted to make it apart of the top of the show, it is news today that people are choosing not to focus on.

kristin well kker, let's focus this letter the white house sent. we've been waiting on it for a week now. they've been preparing -- i think you've been on this program at the very hour saying, any minute now. now they're here. what took them so long? >> that's a really good question. and i can tell you that inside the administration, there was a sense of, what is taking so long? let's get this letter out. broadly speaking, chuck, this is essentially the white house's argument for why they are not going to cooperate with congr s congress. so, you could make the case that they wanted to make sure that every i was dotted and every t was crossed. let me just give you some of the top lines here. one of the headlines is that they are trying to argue that, quote, your inquiry is constituti constitutionally invalid and violates basic due process rights. and the separation of powers. that speaks to their argument that the house needs to hold a full vote before opening an

impeachment inquiry. of course, as you know, chuck, there's nothing in the constitution that requires the house holds a vote in order to open an impeachment inquiry. however, of course, in the past, we have seen that happen. the white house also arguing, the invalid impeachment inquiry seeks to reverse the election of 2016 and influence the election of 2020. this is an argue thamentment th heard quite a bit here. the administration trying to make the case that, look, the people voted, let's have them have their say in 2020, let's let them decide. here's the top line of this letter, chuck. i write on behalf of president trump in response to your numerous legal, unsupported and in demands that you have made contrary to the constitution of the united states. as you know, you have design and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally

mandated due process. now, i have been trying to get them to lay out the legal argument for days, chuck -- >> by the way, kristen, i'm looking through this, too, this is an elaborate press release. they don't have -- they don't really have a legal argument. and i think they kind of know it. it appears to be dressed up in a political argument. they don't have any legal precedent to point to here that indicates anything that supports a single thing they've uttered. >> i think you've hit the nail on the head. as one administration official said earlier, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. and that's effectively what they're trying to argue here, chuck, it is not clear that they have a legal argument that they're making. and so, that may be part of the delay, as well. we know that this was sent out by the white house counsel, but clearly, the challenge here is explaining legally why they are not cooperating. they are daring house speaker nancy pelosi to hold a vote, but it's a political argument that they're making, to be sure,

chuck. >>. >> and the thing is, they're saying congress has no right to ever investigate the president. that's -- it just -- this is not a winning legal argument, but i guess they're trying to make a political argument and that's a whole other story. >> they are. and they see this as an effective political strategy, chuck. remember, this is what we have seen over the past several months of investigations. the white house effectively blocking requests for documents and witness testimony. president trump lashing out on twitter and effectively trying to cast this as an extension of the witch hunt. he thought that was effective. he obviously thought it was effective during the mueller investigation, but a lot of his allies are not convinced it's going to work this time around or this stonewalling is going to work, chuck. >> well, it is a delay tactic and anything that delays is probably decent strategy there. kristen, thank you. garrett, very quickly, i'm going to have a congressman on later about this, but are democrats afraid of a vote on impeachment?

why do you think they're not? >> i don't think they are, chuck. i think the bigger concern here is that it's the tail wagging the dog here. they don't want the white house to dictate to them how their impeachment inquiry goes. they don't need to do this to get the powers they need. why let the white house tell them how to conduct their inquiry? >> all right. garrett, thank you very much. let me bring in the panel that's joining me here in studio. jonathan lemire, nice to have you down here, buddy. and rick tyler, republican strategy, msnbc political analyst. all right, let's start with the white house reporters. jonathan and ann. i know you're racing through this here. they don't think this is going to be an effective legal argument, do they? i mean, let's not pretend this is a legal document they expect to somehow lead to the ending of

the impeachment inquiry. >> no, they don't anticipate this is going to be the home run for them. this is part of the process. their strategy is very simple. just saying no. and they're going to try to stonewall and they're going to try to on obfuscate and try to delay as long as they can. as much as the president himself is personal little very agitated by the talk of impeachment and certainly told people around him -- >> you read this letter, he clearly had a lot of edits. i think the sharpie, the first draft, there's a lot of edits. >> right. the polls are obviously trending against him right now, and so, they're recalculating a little bit, but they feel like they can fight this and certainly if they can push it into next year, if they can slow this down, they can paint it as that much more political if this process is going on, what votes are being

cast in the primaries. >> do you they they're going to be able to stop subpoenas? >> no. they know they cannot stop subpoena. they know they cannot stop the expansion of the current inquiry. >> right. >> but this is an attempt, this letter and the sort of argument -- >> feels like it's a way to hand -- >> it's a thesis. it's not a -- a legal document. it's a theory of the case, which is, this is illegitimate, this is politically driven -- >> this is talking points. >> right. >> this is stuff, are you a defender of donald trump, read this, grab your favorite part and tweet it. >> but there are many people around the president who feel that a version of that worked to their advantage during mueller, and they're running a portion of the same playbook. obviously the predicate of it is very different, because they're in the middle of an impeachment inquiry. the next part isn't that different. you delay, you call the -- call

into question the legitimacy of the investigation, you go after individual people involved in the investigation and try to take them down. >> so, we have a new poll out. we got the political strategists now on this side. i swear we didn't actually organize it that way. the white house team, the political team here. guys, put up full screen two. and this is the breakdown and how we asked, impeach and remove, 24%, congress should investigate, another 31%. not enough evidence for an inquiry, 39%. i looked at this poll today at the same time that the news came out this morning, cornell, that the white house had blocked sondland and i thought, yeah that's what i'd codo. the last ten days has been all about new information. if you can delay new information, then you can make it a political argument. >> although, i got to tell you,

chuck, i'm -- i'm struck by these -- by the polling numbers and the trend line. >> small movements, i could make a case it's been very little movement. we're moving in the wg direction. if you have 55% of independents who thinks the allegations are serious or extremely serious, which is in line with 57% from "the washington post" poll said -- >> for what it's worth, all three of the national polls out today are within margin of error on this. >> yeah, that's the point i'm saying, clearly the trend line is moving in the wrong direction. i love polls hot off the press. 28% that think the allegations should be completely dils mi ll. i know a little bit about politics and i know you don't want to be on the side of the 28%. >> yeah. >> in this thing. so, i don't think politically it's tenable, and when you get into the numbers, when you look at college educated white voters, the shift that we saw in 2018 is just the beginning. >> you'll love this, our pollsters said the most

important swing voter on this issue is a college educated white male. believe it or not. >> right. >> college educated white male is basically the swing voter on trump. >> they still count for something. >> how about that? rick tyler, i'm going to do a little counter factual here. put up full screen one here from the poll. here's the president's job disapproval, 53%. and you think, okay, there's a common number here. another number that fits into that, 54%, you know what that number is in the number of people that didn't vote for donald trump in 2016. the point one of the pollsters made is, hypo, what hey, what h? 54% of america never wanted to see donald trump there in the first place and somewhere between 53% and 55% of america don't like him, don't like his job, think he's not -- he's lying about ukraine and think he probably needs to go. >> and what else hasn't changed is his job approval rating,

still the same window. ironically, joe biden's number is exactly the same as where it was. we are just stuck sort of in this rut. now, to be fair, one thing has changed, more people think these are serious allegations. >> yes. >> but look, i think -- the democrats ought to think long and hard about impeachment, because they are going down this road of impeachment inquiry and let me just say from the outset that congress has a serious job for congressional -- for executive oversight and they should continue these investigations to find out what went wrong, but usually it's the political team and the legal team, i'm glad it's the white house team today, because impeachment is a political process, this is not a legal process and it all has to do with polling and measuring. see, the democrats can get impeachment -- if the whole country wanted impeachment, he would be impeached tomorrow morning. >> of course. >> but because they don't or they are not in a majority, they haven't. and it's still not -- it's a

partisan argument, right? 85% of the democrats want -- 75% want him impeached and 85% on the republican side don't want him impeached. those numbers have got to move in order -- but keep in mind, impeachment is not punishment. it is a removal from office of which mike pence becomes president which would likely pardon the president and he goes off into hotel land and never to have -- >> i -- well, which would be sort of the pattern of donald trump over the years, right? he gets out just in the nick of time. atlantic city? sorry, guys, i'm out of here. jonathan, it does, though -- it does seem as if the president is aware that this isn't sustainable. >> sure. >> and i think that is what seems to be rattling him. >> right. and i think as much as they are, correctly, rolling out the same playbook, it hasn't really worked. they are seeing some changes here. they haven't had any ability to sort of get ahold of the story of control the narrative.

in the last 48 hours, their attempt. they put out this letter, they're clearly -- we have rudy giuliani says today he will defy the subpoenas, he's not going to goes they're willing to play ball in the courts on this. they recognize this is a crisis point. this is a real threat. and people i've talked to in the white house who all along felt like most of them felt like they would survive the mueller probe, it was confusing, they were there during the campaign, they didn't see any wrongdoing. and they were much more worried a about the obstruction part. they thought they could get through and they did. the president really paid no penalty for that. this one, there's a little less certain certainlity, because there still could be stuff coming. >> and here's the thing that puts senate republicans in play. guys, put you full screen four. it's the party breakdown on the issue of remove from office, investigate versus those that say there's not enough.

the one in five republicans, by the way, open for some inquiry. but the independent number there, 60% -- independents look like democrats until all of this except on one issue, on the issue of actually removing him now. it is the only place where independents divert from where the democrats are. and if you are a senate republican, that independent number has to scare you. >> absolutely. and, i mean, we've got some other things that appear to be moving and that could move, too, i mean, the movement since july in "the post" poll among republicans is pretty significant. it's gone 21 points towards moving an impeachment inquiry. that's not the same thing as calling for his removal, but that's a 21% increase that says, yeah, we ought to look at this and obviously that time span covers this entire episode, right? >> it does. >> previously they were talking about mueller-related things and now there's this whole new thing, which to jonathan's point, the white house cannot

get ahold of. >> however, 1 in 5 republicans didn't like donald trump on election day. >> sure. and they probably still don't. >> and we don't know -- and they have -- it has not been enough to move senate republicans off of -- >> two quick things on this. one is, on the independent number, it is actually fascinating, because you remember, chuck, that barack obama didn't win independents in 2012 on our way to winning back-to-back majorities. they have not necessarily been a hard swing democratic group here, because we didn't win them in 2012. >> it does feel as if independents are now going with challengers. >> yes. >> in general, incumbents can lose, because george bush lost independents in '04. >> and they're looking for change. the other part of this, which i think is problematic, is this. the mueller report was -- was broad and it was difficult to understand. americans have been watching gangster movies all their lives. americans understands a shakedown. >> yeah. >> and they see this and they say, this is a shakedown and

it's a lot more clear for them to understand. >> arms for dirt. >> yeah. >> yeah, kind of. >> but there is -- if -- it does seem the strategy is just, make this a bunker mentality. >> and make it as confusing as possible. you guys are right, that there's -- one way to look at it is a pretty simple narrative, which is -- >> no, they want to make it about the mueller report, right? they want to make it seem like it's a continuation. >> that's right. and it's all -- >> some days, you know, the democrats would win the lottery, right, and they would go to the store that sold them the winning ticket and want to investigate why there weren't any fire extinguishers in there. they never seem to just get to the main point. the president extorted an al little for dirt on his political opponent. that's all you need to say. let's stop with -- >> i agree with my republican friend. >> hey, guys, i'm pausing here, we blew through a commercial break because it's what we do in these breaking news moments. but i have a congressman with me, who, as we like to say, is

in the room for this stuff, it's democratic congressman raja, which is the lead of the impeachment investigation. getting the response to the white house letter. thank you. i know you've been hearing the political discussion, but i want to get your first reaction to the letter from the white house to speaker pelosi and all of the chairmen of the three committees on this. essentially saying, this is not a constitutional investigation. >> well, as i think someone pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a legal argument for this letter, it seems to be a political letter and i wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it are in all caps, but the point is that it appears they are again trying to stonewall and delay, but i think the difference in this inquiry compared to past investigations

is this type of behavior will constitute evidence of obstruction of the inquiry, and secondly, any blocked evidence or testimony will be viewed as an almost admission or corroboration of the whistle-blower's complaint. the third point i want to say is just that i think that right now, the white house might be getting something wrong, which is that, i think the american people, public sentiment has changed significantly, and the american people want this inquiry to proceed. and they believe that something has seriously gone wrong. and so, i think they want us to actually ferret out the facts and figure out exactly what's going on, and so, if you are standing in the way of it, i think you're standing really opposite where the american people want to go right now. >> i know that legally you guys have the powers you need. there's a reason why you didn't have to do the vote to open an impeachment inquiry, as the previous ones, because you gave yourself that subpoena power with the house rules changes at

the start of this congress. that's the legal explanation of why you don't need to. but let me ask you this, why not call their bluff? they think you guys are afraid of doing this vote. why not put everybody on the record on this? there's -- there's part of me that thinks -- what's wrong with the american public knowing where everybody stands whether this deserves investigating or not? >> i think a lot of us have already gone on record on this, but i think the second point is that quite frankly, i don't think anybody wants to receive their orders from the white house as to how they should be investigated. >> all right, but congressman, do you think the republicans want to -- how many of those house republicans want to go on the record on this? i know a bunch, quite a few of them do. do you think they all do? >> i don't know. is the short answer. i would just point out one thing, which is, right now, i think most people want to expeditiously conduct this inquiry, because of one

overriding issue, which is, if the whistle-blower complaint' l allegations are to be believed, there is a process today pressuring the ukrainian government's leaders basically to meddle in our 2020 elections, we have to stop that right now. >> you obviously know gordon sondland was blocked from testifying. ambassador ya van know vich is supposed to testify friday what's the likelihood you're going to see her? >> i don't know. each time these depositions or hearings come up, sometimes we have to wait until the last minute to know whether they're going to show. but i think that in the case of ambassador yovan know vich, my understanding is, she wants toch the, she wants to cooperate, and so, the question is whether, you no e, the trump administration will be able to block her the.

in the case of -- >> sondland said he wanted to testify. he flew here to do it and they still -- and he claims that it's state that blocked him. >> and so i -- this is where i think chairman schiff and the other chairmen and women are going to have to make a decision, which is whether or not to issue a subpoena directly to mr. sondland for his records and documents and his testimony. mr. sondland actually turned over a set of documents including texts and emails to the state department, so, they are these materials in their possession and so perhaps a subpoena directed right at him will compel him to produce it to us and maybe that's what he's waiting on, but i can't read his mind, but we'll be following our chairpeople and leadership as to the next steps, but we absolutely have to oppose the choice of them, which is, do you

go along the administration on this stonewalling and delaying or do you kind of come forward, come clean and produce your documents. >> why do you -- i know we need to let you go, but why do you think that strategy will work? the president doesn't think there was any penalty for -- i mean, the mueller report accuses him of obstructs multiple times. he hasn't -- hasn't bothered him, hasn't bothered his supporters or congressional republicans. why do you think obstructing is going to bother them now? >> i think that the public sentiment has shifted so much that at this point, i think people believe there's a resumption that something is very wrong. they saw the july 25th call transcript. they saw the whistle-blower complaint. they saw the trump-appointed inspector general come forward and call the complete credible and urgent. and that's very significant. this is a -- this is a gentleman, by the way, mr. atkinson, who had no incentive

to come forward on his own to produce that complaint and he did, at risk of his career. and so, i think those facts really kind of compel people to think, well, okay, if they're sto stonewalling or delaying, they're trying to protect themselves against disclosure, so, why are they doing that? it must be because they're trying to hide something. and i think that is a big presumption that the trump folks have to overcome, which i don't think they can in this case. >> especially the fact that the whistle-blower, there's fears for their safety. >> that's right. that's exactly right. yes. >> congressman, as always, sir, thank you for coming on. >> thank you, thank you. up next, as president trump tries to defend his decision to pull troops from syria's border with turkey, he's added an interesting date to his calendar. a white house visit for the turkish president. e turkish president. ♪

new pasta and grill combos starting at $9.99. only at applebee's. a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, 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. driven each day to pursue bioplife-changing cures...ers. in a country built on fostering innovation. here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... and a new therapy that gives the blind a working gene so they can see again. because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

(kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

welcome back. battling intense bipartisan blowback over his decision to withdraw troops so suddenly from northern syria, president trump is trying to put to rest concerns that his decision could lead to the slaughter of folks who have important allies to this country in that region, the cu kurds. he tweeted, "we may be in the process of leaving syria, but in no way have we abandoned the kurds." let's go to richard engel, who

joins us live from ils tan bull. richard, the president put a meeting with erdogan on the schedued is schedule for next month. is that the carrot the president is offering to try to keep erdogan from doing what everybody fears he's going to do, or what? what are you seeing that's actually getting ready to take place out in turkey? >> so, we're seeing a military buildup. there are troops and armored personnel carriers and rocket launchers that have been moved down to the syrian border. buildup on the pro government channels. the same way when the united states went on war footing during the iraq war, the retired generals and military analysts came out and they had their maps and their chalkboards. that's starting to happen now on these pro government channels.

so, this country definitely feels like it's talking about an offensive. there's a lot of talk about this safe zone that turkey wants to create. a safe zone, a buffer zone, inside syria. and people here are now watching to see if, but more likely when this will take play. we don't know if it's going to take place, but that's certainly what it feels like when you see this nationalism that is airing on the pro government channels. >> and what -- look, this is -- sometimes, what the president says about the kurds, erdogan says, yeah, but let me tell you about pkk. i mean, are they speaking the same language when they talk to each other or are they -- or is there an intentional miscommunication? >> well, if it's intentional or not, it seems like president trump and president erdogan both had very different objectives in that call. so, the two of them spoke on sunday. nbc's been reporting that they were supposed to meet at the

u.n. general assembly or president erdogan wanted to meet president trump at the u.n. general assembly, it didn't happen. so, president trump calls him. in the course of this call, president erld wan bridogan, we to do this, we're doing this offensi offensive, and didn't necessarily get a green light, but maybe a yellow light, go ahead and proceed with caution, just don't make it too outrageous and don't hurt anile of the american troops there. then, that is a green light, by the way. then, u.s. troops, some of them, pulled away from the front line areas, or the would be front line areas, pulling back from the border, the border that, where turkish troops are now lined up, so, that's opening the door for them. and we spoke to a u.s. official today that said u.s. troops haven't been orderered to leave syria. they are still in syria, still around 1,000 of them. and in some ways, that's worse, because they're going to be in syria, on their bases, with no mandate to protect the people who they've been fighting shoulder to shoulder with for the last four years.

a very, very awkward and one might even call morally complicated position for these troops to be in. >> so, if we're backing away from our commitment to the kurds, where do they turn? >> well, right now, they don't have very many choices. they are hoping president trump will change policy. that they're appealing to the american people, they are appealing to the world not to let this happen. if this does, in fact, happen and they are realizing that the american troops have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with them are just, because of their orders, not going anywhere and sitting on their bases and sort of putting their head in their hands, they're going to have to turn to somebody else and the only other two would be russia or syria or some combination of the two. >> richard engel in istanbul, a place you have stationed yourself for so many of these war buildups that we've been

preparing for over time and here you are again. here's hoping it doesn't get as hot as we all are expecting. richard, thank you very much. with we now is michael mcfaul, the our international ail fairs analyst. and mike, the president, one of the things that i feel like gets lost here sometimes is, i want to read you a quote from mitch mcconnell, who is particularly, you know, obviously, upset about this. he said, a precipitous withdrawal of u.s. forces from syria would only benefit russia, iran and the assad regime. and it would increase the risk that isis and other terrorist groups regroup." when the president does something that goes against our middle east commitments, the republicans say, hey, this is only going to help russia, why

is it so hard to make that connection? >> that's a great point. i agree with senator mcconnell. i want to say that on the record t . second, this decision does benefit russia and the withdr withdrawal of military assistant to ukraine, it benefits russia. it's all part of the same package. what's really important here, the complete breakdown of the interagency process for making forge policy in the united states of america. who was on this phone call? who wrote the talking points for it? what was the interagency process? did they sit down there in the white house situation with the room sitting next to his secretary of defense and secretary of state to make this decision? we all know that's not true. and time and time again we see this pat earn, and now lives are at stake when we're making these mistakes, in my view, on how to

make foreign policy in the administration. >> explain what erdogan's trying to do here. how much of this is just historic, ethnic battle between the turks and the kurds, and how much of this is erdogan's own sort of ability to try to essentially straddle america and russia in his own relations? >> i think it's mostly the former. you know, they have a long-standing tension with the pkk, as you were just discussing with richard. he wants to create this buffer zone. he said that many times. but that's not in america's national interest. that may be in turkish, iranian and russian interest and mr. assad's interest. it's not in our interest. remember, operation inherent resolve started in 2014, not during the trump administration, by the way. it was continued. the main fighters that defeated isis are exactly the people that we are now abandoning.

the kurds. we -- we're the support group. 1,000 troops does not defeat them. they were the ones that defeated isis, and that's why it's such a terrible tragedy that we're now abandoning them. a lesson that will be learned not just by kurds but the rest of the world the next time we go around looking for allies to fight our enemies. >> you know, there's a movie and book that people ought to read and watch, if they don't want to read it, it's called "charlie wilson's war." is there any part of this feel familiar, right mike? >> i have seen that movie -- >> who did we abandon in afghanistan, how did that work out? >> well, the thing that strikes me about that is the entrepreneurial people that get involved in this. the giulianis of the world that kind of show up because they're looking for personal economic interests and we see that at play. but the thing we really see at play is the breakdown of american foreign policy decision-making. we have no definition of what the american national interest is.

instead, we're just kind of making it up, we're going from one crisis to the next, and that is not serving the american people. >> well, it's not clear what is america's national interest anden what is president trump's personal interest, and that's what keeps getting blurred here. mike mcfaul, thank you for coming on, sharing your views and your expertise. >> thank you. >> i'm going to bring the round table back. rick, let me go to this point on, sort of, it's very important to elected republicans to defend the president on the mueller report and russia collusion and yet at the same time, just about every single foreign policy critique they've had of him has been in some form of, why are you advancing the interest of russia? and somehow those two questions never seem to merge together. >> it is astonishing, i mean, the republicans, they want to stay out of the way of president trump, you saw what he tried to do with mitt romney, but the republicans have been pretty solidified over -- their broad

idealism about our foreign policy. and this administration couldn't tell you what our foreign policy is. they couldn't tell you what our objectives are with iran, saudi arabia, syria, with russia -- there is no cohesive -- and this is coming from inside the administration, there is no coherent foreign policy. that's dangerous. if the u.s. doesn't lead on foreign policy, despite how trump would like it, the world quickly becomes pretty dark and bloody. >> anne, you traveled the world with multiple secretaries of state. you've -- it -- how weird is this, that we have this -- the divide between the president and everybody else in his party on a few of these issues and they're always related to russia. >> yes, they are always related to russia. just -- i sort of -- i go back to what ambassador mcfaul was saying, that the main differe e difference, yes, russia-specific

is important to remember, but the main difference is just that, the scattershot nature of all of these decisions. there really is only one policy and it is what the president wants. >> or thinks in the moment. >> and he changes his mind. and there's a hesitancy to come in and make proposals to him that might be in american national interest, might serve his own aims politically, might even, as other presidents have had, make him look good for re-election. there's always been an overlap between foreign policy and politics. there's no firewall there. but people are even afraid to bring those ideas to the president because they don't know what he thinks and he might think something different tomorrow. he's already backed off, in the turkey example. >> you're right. he's trying to back off even though the order had still been given. >> and he's given three, i believe, maybe more by now, explanations for why he did it. >> he hasn't withdrawn the

order. >> no i asked him about it yesterday. and he sort of took it in stride, he said, i understand there's different points of views on this. he said this was a campaign promise, this was something he was going to do. and there isn't much about this president where he can say he has a fixed ideology. this is something that he believes in, ending these endless wars, as he say s it. now, obviously, yes, does itted a van russia's interest? it certainly does. and perhaps those things are linked. but he says this is something i've wanted to do, and we are seeing some moderation here. he is sort of encouraging the turks to take it easy and suggesting the americans will still be there for the kurds in some way. but he's claiming he went through the process, though there's recording that the pang was blindsided by this. he said this is something he still wants. >> i have never melt a general at the pang who is in favor of a

troop decline, right? a troop withdrawal or -- you know, i don't mean -- it is amazing. i remember barack obama -- the pentagon is never happy when the decision is, we're pulling back. and this is something that i think, in a weird way, both trump and obama would be like, yeah, the pentagon's always telling me no, which is truth. >> i'm struck by how, you know, the how not partisan this is. i agree with joni ernst on this. that's never happened before. look, the all right from istanbul about what turkey is going to do. we know what they're going to do. >> this is not something they're doing lightly or hesitantly. they've been trying to do this for two years now. >> and we're going to watch on television and -- >> trump's mindset, this is

where there is an -- >> this is not a campaign promise from the president. the president campaigned on balancing the budget, lower deficits, lower spending. mexico paying for -- we can just go on and on. he worries this promise and not the other ones. >> go back to the guy you worked with. >> which one? >> ted cruz, why is it -- what is with the decision to sort of compartmentalize mueller and everything else when it comes toll the russian foreign policy? >> look, i can only determine the that it's a political decision. that senator cruz goes back to texas and the texas voters that are elected him like donald trump. when he hears differently, i'm sure a lot of senators, they

will act differently. but until nthen, there are so many things we should consistently be pushing. as conservatives, not as rerps. conservatives pushing hack. >> i think that's what's been lost. quickly, jonathan, the thing that i think the president risks here is it's the people that care the most about this are senate republicans. >> oh, yeah. >> and they hold his -- i don't think the president appreciates it. whether he likes it or not, they hold his fate in his hands. >> the timing of this is very striking. he's never needed them as much as he needs right now, and then he made this decision that alien nated them. senator mcconnell yesterday comparing this decision to the obama administration, which he knew would get under the president's skin. >> jonathan, anne, cornell and rick, thank you all. be sure to check out the late e

edition of "the chuck toddcast." i spoke with christopher wiley. this is a good one. boy, he scores the living daylight s out of you about privacy. it's worth a listen. check it out. car maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere.

prevagen. healthier brain. better life. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. ♪

new pasta and grill combos starting at $9.99. only at applebee's. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day.

zyrtec muddle no more. ♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat. asbut when your team is always dealing with device setups, app updates, and support calls... you can never seem to get anywhere. that's why dell technologies created unified workspace, powered by vmware. ♪ a revolutionary solution that lets you deploy, manage, support and secure all your devices from the cloud. so you can stop going in circles, and start moving forward. welcome back. the third annual "meet the

press" film festival at afi kicked off this week. the subject was 21 documentaries that were part of the program this year. in one, "st. louis superman," follows an activist and former state rep in missouri. while he served he was known as superman to his constituents. he ran and served as a democrat in the republican majority missouri statehouse. here is a clip from the film. >> you ain't five to what that? >> august. >> august what? >> 9th. >> august 9th. you're going to learn about august 9th real soon. something else happened on august 9th when you was born. >> what happened? >> i'll tell you when you're 5. [ laughter ] >> on august 9th. >> august 9th.

>> 18-year-old michael brown was gunned down by a white police officer in ferguson, missouri. >> shot dead an unarmed black teen. >> we don't get it. >> shut it down. >> bruce franks jr. joins me now, welcome to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me. >> michael brown gets killed. the ferguson protests begin. tell me about your activism in politics before then. >> before then, it was nonexistent. i was comfortable in life just like most people, just trying to make it, survive. still was a rapper, into hip-hop. >> you were thinking about hollywood or new york? >> about getting signed. >> maybe nashville. >> right. and when michael brown was killed, i tell people all the time, i was never an activist but when i went out there into

the streets, i didn't know i was going out there. if you took highway 55 from chicago to st. louis at 80 miles per hour when you first found out it happened, you would still be in time to see michael brown's body on the ground. that's problem. 4 1/2 hours. >> you did something every dreams up, you know what, i'm going to try to do something about it myself. when you decided to run, what did you think the experience was going to be, and when you won, did it meet your expectations? >> i didn't know what the experience was going to be. and had i known, i probably wouldn't have ran. >> is that right? >> yeah. >> the more you know about it now, knowing now, you wouldn't have run? >> absolutely. but i'm happy i didn't know. >> okay. >> because i felt like i needed to run. this is an important thing. >> why is it that you now wouldn't have run? this is kind of depressing to a person like me who wants to

believe our democracy is always the right answer, eventually. but i hate that it turns you off. why? >> because for one, operating in a system that wasn't built for you or folks that built like you, going against this, saying you know what, i'm not willing to accept that, is hard because you're fighting on so many different levels and nobody gets you ready for that mental strain it's going to take. if you're the right politician or the right elected official, then this is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job. that type of strain on top of what you deal with mentally and then going through these years being undiagnosed with anxiety and depression and now having this build on you, it tore me down. >> and yet that's exactly what people want to hear. it sounds like utteryou really this job, carry your constituents on your shoulders. >> absolutely. >> now, you don't have to carry them on your own.

what advice would you give somebody else that wants to run now so that they could maybe, you know, not feel the way you feel? >> you're important. take care of yourself. because if you don't have self-care in that plan, you will get burned out. many people told me, oh, don't, you'll get burned out. i'm like, no, i'm here for the people. eventually, mentally and even physically i did get burned out. >> is it gratifying that your victory, you won, and i'm sure a lot of people thought that couldn't happen, you're a role model now, you can break through, you have to fight hard, punch hard. is it gratifying that people see you as an example that you can do that? >> absolutely. one of the most important things when people tell you you can do anything you put your mind to, it's different when you can show them. we weren't supposed to win. >> i encourage you to see this,

"st. louis superman," i wish we had more time to talk about ferguson and about mental health. that's for being on and speaking your mind. >> appreciate it. >> check out the film festival streaming on nbcnews.com and all our nbc platforms. towed. all i had to take care of was making sure that my daughter was ok. if i met another veteran, and they were with another insurance company, i would tell them, you need to join usaa because they have better rates, and better service. we're the gomez family... we're the rivera family... we're the kirby family, and we are usaa members for life. get your auto insurance quote today. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything.

keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪

to the wait did frowe just win-ners. prouders everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime so you only pay for what you need.

it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. call, click, or visit a store today. an announcement before we go. nbc news will co-host the fifth democratic presidential debate alongside "the washington post," november 20th in georgia. the specific location will be announced at a later date. meanwhile, "the beat with ari melber" starts now. >> thanks, chuck. the administration blocked a key witness from testifying at the last minute, a huge story. we have it for you. house democrats clearly have trump on the defense. that may explain why republicans are trying to get in on the action. in the senate, they're now pressing, of all people, rudy giuliani to testify to a republican committee. bu