thank you very much for watching. "a.m. joy" starts right now. >> i found mr. taylor to be highly credible. he doesn't have a dog in this fight. >> bill taylor gave the most sweeping and devastating pm about president trump's efforts to shake down the ukranian government. >> this is my most disturbing day in congress so far. very troubling. thanks. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to a.m. joy. i'm sitting in for my good friend joy reid. we have a lot to get to this morning starting with the very latest on the impeachment probe that's got donald trump on edge.

a federal court on friday hand add major legal victory to the democrats. essentially ruling that their impeachment inquiry is in fact legitimate and ordering the jus tus department to turn over unredacted grand jury material from the mueller report to congress by next week. now, the ruling caps off what has been perhaps one of the most damning weeks for trump yet in this impeachment probe. thanks to to bomb shell testimony of william taylor, the lead u.s. envoy to ukraine who made a direct link between donald trump and the with holding of military aid to ukraine for trump's political gain. now, the day after taylor's testimony house republicans did this, seeking to protect trump, they stormed a secure closed door deposition, bringing it literally to halt while over in the senate lindsey graham introduced a resolution condemning the impeachment inquiry. this morning there are new signs of no signs rather of things slowing down with the deposition

of yet another high ranking state department official. he is set to testify in the next hour or so. joining me now is congressman who is a member of the house judiciary committee. he joins us from boulder, colorado this morning. thanks so much for joining us. let me first, sir, get your reaction to the news of the day and how this week played out on the impeachment inquiry. you're a member of the house judiciary committee. what do you make of this stunt that the gop members tried to pull off earlier in the week? >> well, good morning and it's great to be with you. i thought the stunt was precisely that. a stunt that was designed to distract away from the egregious conduct that this president has engaged in and i think the reality that is dawning on some house republicans that clearly they can't defend the president on the law, they can't defend the facts and so ultimately they are going to engage in these kind of frivolous stunts

designed to distract the american people away from the core conduct that we are learning more and more about as the weeks go by. i don't think the american people are going to stand for it. they want to see a serious methodical sober minded investigation which is precisely what's happening under chairman schiff's leadership, so as i said, i don't think that the republicans students ants are g work and although they were able to delay the deposition for a few hours, nonetheless the deposition went forward as planned. laura cooper testified and as you know, the committees of both intelligence foreign affairs and oversight that have jurisdiction are proceeding with their work including today. the work goes on. >> there's two parts to this. one is the political and the optics of this. they're saying this is about transparent si, that is saying what's happening behind closed doors is trying to hide the facts and deny this president

due process and transparency of law. is there any validity to that assessment. >> no, and there's not. and one need look no further than the ruling that you mentioned that came out just yesterday. a judge howell's blistering decision that rejected some of the process arguments that republicans have been making with respect to this notion that the full house had to vote for example to begin an impeachment inquiry. the judge's decision rejecting these arguments as frivolous by the department of justice i thought and believe is a victory not just for the congress and of course for the house judiciary committee but for the rule of law. the republicans, it's clear they're going to continue to do what they're doing which is engage in these ridiculous arguments to try to distract away from the president's abuse of power and his betrayal of the constitution. house democrats are going to remain laser focused on following the facts where they lead us while we continue to

legislate on behalf of the american people. >> let's talk about the key testimonies we've heard throughout the week and what we're expected to hear in the week ahead. paint for us a picture of some of the information you guys have been able to put together on this impeachment front and more importantly, we've got a busy week ahead. a lot of testimony still to take place. so far we've had about 65 plus hours of closed door testimony. what can we expect in the week ahead and what have you guys been able to piece together? >> well, i would say this. i am not on those three committees that are leading the inquiry right now and so i'm not going to comment on the core testimony provided by these witnesses. what i will say is i think chairman schiff has done a masterful job over the last month since we first learned of the whistle blower's complaint steadily building a case that is damning in terms of this president's abuse of power. one can go back and start with the call summary notes released by the white house nearly a

month ago. the substance of the whistle-blower complaint himself and now witness after witness that has appeared before the impeachment committees and really providing their truth as to what happened during this ukraine scandal as it were. and obviously i reviewed the statement that was released publicly with respect to ambassador taylor which i believe you talked about the beginning of your program that again, you think of someone who's an american patriot, a vietnam veteran, someone hired by this administration for his current task for him to come in and provide the testimony he did, i just, again, i think that it is a -- it's a big week, it had been a big week for the american people and of course as you mentioned we have a number of witnesses slatded to come in next week and right now in real time today. so as i said in the beginning, the work will continue. we'll follow the facts where they lead us and ultimately we'll hold this administration

accountable. i want to emphasize this point. i know it can be difficult for many of your views as they see what's happening to really trust that this administration will be held accountable. i've never lost faith in the article 1 or article 3 branch in terms of them able to hold the administration accountable. i think you're seeing that play out in real time and we'll continue to do so. >> sir, thank you for joining us this morning. >> thank you. joining me now is natasha bertrand of politico and david corn, author of "russian roulette." let's start with the latest developments on the impeachment probe. some key testimonies coming in. how have they tipped balance in terms of where the investigators want to take this investigation and then as i was asking the congressman there painting that big picture of the impeachment?

>> yeah, well, i think it's made it really hard for democrat to come up with any kind of time line here about when they want to start actually writing the articles of impeachment because they've been so pleasantly surprised by the amount of testimony they've gotten from current administration officials in defiance of the pentagon, the white house and the state department who have ordered them not to testify. so democrats are really just compiling all of this evidence to use when they do start having these public hearings, when they do start writing the articles and i think bill taylor's testimony this last week really tipped things over the edge. you see republicans complaining a lot about the process, but you really don't see that many of them defending the president on the substance of this and that's because it's very difficult for them to dispute the things that a career diplomat, bill taylor said during his testimony during a lengthy opening statement in which he detailed in extreme detail all of the things that he had pretty much been taking notes on for the last, you know,

eight or nine months with regard to the ukraine scandal outlining how the president had basically ordered military aid to ukraine to be stopped in favor of these political investigations, so it's becoming increasingly difficult for the republicans i think to defend this president. that's why you saw lindsey graham come out and condemn the impeachment inquiry because he was being so pressured by the house to just do something and obviously it's becoming more and more unsustainable for the republicans to stand by in all of this because of the amount of officials that are just defying the administration and going to capitol hill to testify. >> yeah, we're going to do a deep dive into the gop reaction to all of this, but david, let me get you to connect the dots for our viewers. the significance of the court ruling on friday that the grand jury testimony of bob mueller's investigation into the origins of the russia investigation, whether or not there was obstruction of justice or collusion, all of that, what's the significance of that?

why is that ruling so important for what is happening today, which is the impeachment inquiry on the issue of whether military aid to ukraine was being held up? >> well, the white house and republicans in congress have basically called the impeachment inquiry a sham inquiry because there was no full house vote to proceed with impeachment. they've been trying to basically force democrats to, you know, support this with a vote because there are a couple dozen democrats in trump districts who, you know, support impeachment going forward, but would rather not vote for it yet. and the judge said hey, you don't need to have a full formal vote for an impeachment inquiry to go forward so if you say this one, there's one. and if you come to me and ask me to give you leeway in getting access to bob mueller's testimony and evidence that's unredacted you can get it because you have an impeachment inquiry. so that puts that issue somewhat

to the side. for the democrats though, let me go back to a phrase you used a moment ago. you said big picture. they actually don't want a big picture in a sense. they want a narrow picture. they -- you know, the mauluelle report is great to get access to but it has very little to do with the ukraine scandal and they don't want to go back and look at the obstruction and the ukraine scandal. but they want to keep it focused on abuse of power related to the ukraine scandal where they essentially have video of trump robbing a bank. we're going to stick with that. >> it seems like with every passing week there are more holes being shot in the administration's argument that there was no quid bro quo, that they did nothing wrong, that the phone call as president trump likes to say was perfect all of the time but interestingly enough what has emerged is that top officials were told in early august according to the "new

york times," that the delay of security assistance was in fact undercutting a chief argument that president trump has used to deny any quid pro quo. the significance, talk to us about that. why is it that that undermines the argument that the trump administration was saying that the ukranians think that this was absolutely perfect, no violations there. >> yeah, so what the white house in some of trump's republican allies and trump hums have been saying is there couldn't have been a quid pro quo because the ukranians didn't know the military assistance aid had been held up and that therefore, just the fact that the president was asking them to open political investigations into joe biden and interference in the 2016 election was not an extortion because they didn't know that there was something on the other end of that, but that's been undermined by two things, the first being of course that the ukranians found out that this military aid was being held up and the second of course that

they were being with held from the white house summit. that is something very important to the president because that imposes some legitimacy on him and shows that the united states faces the ukraine and so it was very important accomplishment for them to have achieved in the first few months of zelensky being in office and the president was with holding that from them in favor of launching these political investigations so when you put that on top of the with holding military aid a very clear picture emerges. we've been reporting that trump himself had ordered this. politico reported on august 29th that trump had ordered his national team to review this and we were told this was a normal review, but of course now we know the real story. >> all right. thank you both for joining us this hour. coming up, we are going to take a closer look at the

republicans' chaos strategy. keep it right here. >> bye bye, boys. have fun storming the castle. good-bye! good-bye [grunting] [maniacal laughter] gold. gold! right, uh...thank you, for that, bob. but i think it's time we go with gbtc.

it's bitcoin exposure through a traditional investment account. nice rock. it's time to drop gold. go digital. go grayscale. still fresh... ♪ unstopables in-wash scent booster ♪ downy unstopables mom you've got to [ get yourself a new car.g ] i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. ♪ were you going to tell me about this?

i know i can't afford to go. i still have this car so you can afford to go. i am so proud of you. thanks. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com. that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure.

and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today. it's one of those mornings and we are watch ago ton of news. e mornings and we are watch ago ton of news any reaction to bill taylor's testimony yesterday? >> well, i am almost late for my own hearing.

>> i'm sorry, we haven't gone in yet. >> any reaction to bill taylor's testimony yesterday? >> i don't. republicans did everything they could to avoid responding directly to william taylor's explosive testimony this week and since they couldn't attack the substance of the impeachment inquiry, they attacked the process instead. house republicans had the capitol in an uproar wednesday when they did this, what you see on your screen, storming a closed door deposition with a defense department official. in fact, they claimed that they were protesting a lack of tr transparency even though there are republicans on three committees. they were allowed to be inside to see exactly what was happening and even to participate in the questioning of those individuals. joining me now is msnbc contributor charlie psychos and david frum.

lot to get to here, guys. let me begin first of all with this explanation of the republicans about what they were saying the reason why this closed door testimony was such a bad thing and something they tried to storm. take a listen. >> we demand open proceedings, the american people deserve nothing less. >> maybe in the soviet union this kind of thing is common place. this shouldn't be happening in the united states of america. >> the american people as i said before, they understand fairness and they know that what is happening here is not fair. >> so charlie, let me begin with you. on the scale of one to ten, one being actual substance, where would you rank what we just witnessed there and these arguments that these congressmen were making? >> oh, i would put this at an 11. this was street theater. this was the republican party channelling its inner code pink it's like being in a -- playing

chess and you realized you've just been check mated and you throw the board over. you try to turn the whole thing into a farce. and this is clearly what they're trying to do, that they -- as the defenses crumble they need to talk about the process and to the extent that it is darker and darker picture for the president, what they're trying to do is they're trying to turn it into a circus. but i think it backfired on them. >> so by our count i believe and we can put this up here on the screen, republicans who participated in protests we've got almost ten or so republicans. yeah, there you see them right there. i'm curious to get your thoughts on this which is republicans making the argument that there's a shortage of transparency of it but the reality of it is, these individuals could have participated and could have come out, made their own statements as democrats have, but they chose not to. why do you think they decided to go this way as opposed to being candid and forthcoming and participating in this process? >> because they got nothing?

i mean, good morning. i know it's a saturday so i'll be -- so let's remind the american people that the rules that the house are -- the democrats in the house are following right now are the same rules that were set by john boehner, a republican that was was voted on but the republican majority. so the fact they're saying there's no transparency is false. it was these house rules for this specific type of inquiry were set by the republicans when they were in the majority. the fact you have many of the people that stormed the secure area stating they wanted transparency, they wanted to make sure they were in on what was happening was also a farce because many of them already are privy no these because they sit on these committees. it was smoke and mirrors. they can't go after the substance of what the democratic impeachment inquiry is right now and that is so -- and that's unfortunate because you're

creating theatrictheatrics. the fact that we may have a president that has crossed the line, threatened the security of our country, every single american and public servant that is there should be taking it very seriously. instead they're trying to use these tactics to intimidate witnesses. they're trying to make sure the american people don't know what's p haing and instead of using their leadership position to say hey, let's take a step back, let's put the country over party. let's have a conversation and let's see where this leads us, that's what the republicans did under the nixon administration. it got to a point that the republicans backed off and said let's let the process go and let's give it breath and light and see if there were transgressions. they're on vi skating that. >> one of my favorite moments every week is when somebody digs up an old sound bite of graham

saying something that contradicts the position he's taking now. i feel like we're getting amazing hits. take a listen to what he had to say about doing depositions. >> the depositions i think will determine whether orbit we go forward with hearings. i think it's a very smart thing to do is to depose these people and find out what they've got to say and not drag this thing out unnecessarily. >> at some point you've got to wonder why lindsey graham is bending over backwards to try and appease this president. i'm not sure if it's because the president called on republicans to get tougher or he's abandoned those principles he's taken way back when, but how do you explain these congressman taking positions in the past that seemingly are now contradictory. >> what is happening this week is a spirit building exercise. if you've ever been on the

losing team and you retreat at half-time you get the inspirational message from the coach, we're not doing this for anybody else except for ourselves and that is what is going on here. republicans in the week leading up to the storming of the scif, peopler were falling off. the number two senator -- number two in the senate republican caucus, are saying this looks pretty bad. what you need to do is get everyone revved up, everyone excited. it doesn't matter whether it makes sense or whether it's nonsense because the loyalties here they're trying to build are to each other. in 2015 there's a meet ng the house republican caucus that somehow got recorded and kevin mcor thi made a jock. he said there were two people i think putin pays, and president trump or donald trump as he then was and the republicans all laughed and paul ryan then the leader says this doesn't go out

of the room because we knead to show we can trust each other and we're family. they knew back then that donald trump was a bad guy but they stuck together. that is the spirit the republicans are trying to build here and as a country, the way we're going to get out of this is we need to offer these republicans an exit to say here is something you can still function as a party, you can still function as a team and you can sever yourself from this bad president. >> charlie, another part of this is to attack the process, one of the things that republicans have been saying is that there needs to be a house floor on impeachment. listen to again lindsey graham talking about this. >> the purpose of the resolution is to let the house know that the process you're engaging in regarding the attempted impeachment of president trump is out of bounds, is inconsistent with due process as we know it. >> i think if we were doing this you'd be beating the [ bleep ]

out of us. >> what do you make of that? do you really need to have the house vote on the impeachment proceedings where they stand right now? i mean, isn't by definition at some point when the house has to vote on articling of impeachment, isn't that the actual vote that will determine whether or not there's anything for this to stand on? >> yes, but all of this is also a distraction. i think that became clear from that federal judge's ruling yesterday, but the story of lindsey graham is really quite i mean exceptional when you think about his willingness to shamelessly switch all of his positions and look, this is where the republicans are at right now. they have to talk about the legitimacy of the process, focusing on that vote. that's a fig leaf that's going to be torn away very, very soon and this is what, you know, david talks about you know, the offramp for republican. republicans in the senate have to realize that things are going to get a lot worse in terms of the evidence, in terms of the venue that's going to be

televised trial, in terms of the president's behavior and they're not going to be able to hide behind these questions about when does the house have a vote, public hearing, private hearings, that process issue will be resolved at some point politically, so at some point they're going to have to confront the substance and the substance of this is a president who has abused his power and sold out the country. >> david, really quickly, i'm curious to get your thoughts on the politics of the timing of this. we -- i believe the recent polls suggest that 93% of democrats favor impeachment or maybe 89%, excuse me. 89% favor impeachment and removing president trump from office. republicans a staggering 90% think nothing should be done to him. it's all about the independents in the middle who are equally divided on this. are democrats in a race against time here to not lose that center ground? >> i think the time works the

other way and especially there are republican senators who are uncomfortable. the fact that lindsey graham circulated this motion and got 46 republicans to sign, the and he couldn't do more than that, that's a warning. indeed, the time may be in fact on the democrats side for this reason. the sooner -- the faster you move the sooner president trump gets acquitted and the question that i were a democrat i would be wondering do i want the acquittal vote to take place in january so there's time for people to get over it or do i want to push it closer to november so the whole country is voting on the resolution that so many americans support that donald trump should be removed? >> thank you very much. you guys are going to be back with us next hour. a lot more to talk about as well. more "a.m. joy" right after the break. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance,

so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

there's so much scent in new gain scent blast detergent... ...you'll either love it or... mmm... i guess not. new gain scent blast. love it or hate it. it's intense.

coming up the department of justice investigates itself. we'll tell you more about where that is going. stay with us. with us

this fall, book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a free night. because when your business is rewarding yourself, our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com

the extent that there was any overreach i believe it was some -- a few people in the upper echelons of the bureau and perhaps the department. but those people are no longer there, and i'm working closely with chris wray who i think has done a superb job at the bureau and we're working together on trying to reconstruct exactly what went down. >> donald trump is finally getting his wish when it comes to investigating the investigator. something he has called for

publicly many times into the mueller probe. the "new york times" was the first to report that the justice department's investigation into its own investigation of russian meddling in the 2016 election has now evolved into a criminal inquiry. it's unclear the exact crimes they are looking into or when the investigation actually moved into this phase of the process. joining me now, an all star legal panel. barbara mcquaid. mya wylie and joyce vance, msnbc contributor and also former u.s. attorney. great to have all three of you with us. barbara, let me begin with you and talk about the significance of this. what does it mean that this investigation into the investigators has now transitioned into a criminal inquiry? >> well, it's very unusual and i think it's very significant. you know, the fbi should never be above being scrutinized for its work. we've had misconduct by the fbi in our nation's history, but to make an investigation criminal

as opposed to just making sure all the t's were crossed and all the i's were dotted requires an objective and factual basis, a pred occasion to believe that a crime was committed not just that somebody was sloppy or overreached but it was actually criminal. and that concerns me. i worry that if there is not truly based on a factual basis that this will have a chilling effect on anyone who wants to investigate people in power. >> have we politicized this investigation now? is this investigation as barbara is saying, meant to send a chill down the spines of intelligence analysts, everyone who is trying to connect the dots back in 2016 as to what russia was exactly doing? >> i agree with barbara in terms of her concern. it's highly unusual and not because there's any examination, but because the nature of it now. i think it's -- i think it's less about chilling current

analysts as much as it is distracting from the very real evidence that we're seeing emerge both in the ukraine scandal with donald trump that is really endangering his presidency, you know, and increasingly with his lawyer rudy giuliani. you know, a lot of -- if we remember what is underneath this ukraine scandal and the potential crimes that they involve, not to mention the abuse of power, it is in part donald trump having a call with a president of a foreign nation, ukraine in this case, asking in part a day after robert mueller testifies for him to help open investigations on both his political opponent joe biden but also on the roots of the mueller probe and so the timing of this is very concerning because typically prosecutors worry a lot about whether there's any appearance of trying to engage in something that serves a political agenda as opposed to a

criminal justice agenda. this one is very concerning. >> let's talk a little bit about the personalities of william barr here and the significance of him leading this investigation. a lot of this seems like he's trying to placate and appease the president and here's the interesting thing. i want to play you a sound bite of acting attorney general matthew whitaker about the abuse of power watch. >> abuse of power is not a crime. let's -- fundamentally boil it down, the constitution is very clear this has to be some pretty egregious behavior and they cannot tell the american people what this case is about because they have to do it in secret. >> what's interesting to me, he's obviously talking about impeachment but what's interesting to me, joyce, is what it says about the kind of people the president wants to be the head of the department of justice? william barr in one hand saying he thinks there was spying taking place and attorney general matthew whitaker saying

that abuse of power is not a crime. >> you know, it seems like the president has always wanted a roy kaun to head the justice department. he's always wanted a personal lawyer and he finally got it on his third try with william barr and what's so troubling here is the fact that barr seemed to open this investigation in the first place, the original administrative investigation that he housed up with the u.s. attorney in connecticut. he seemed to open that in response to the president's twitter chatter, calling for an investigation, talking about treason which everyone knows is not on the table. the legal elements of treason just aren't within the realm of possibility here, so this is always looked a lot more like an effort to passify the president. taking it into the criminal

realm, it doesn't take a lot but you have to have more than a hunch that a crime has been committed. you have to have reason to believe that there are crimes. we have the president saying stick around and wait, there will be some sort of a crime and that's troubling as you point out particularly in light of this standard that the former attorney general throws up for us saying that abuse of trust is not what this president has committed, is not what has happened in ukraine, contrasting those two situations, it seems like the president wants to live by one standard, but hold his political opponents to an entirely difficult much more strict one. >> and barbara, this also implicates a lot of our close allies because as we have learned from both the -- both the wall street yournl and the "washington post," william barr is requesting foreign help and that in itself has prompted backlash from some of our allies, australia, italy, the uk. he's also asked those companies to aid into the cia and fbi

activities of 2016. that is pretty dangerous when you think about the fact that you are asking foreign intelligence agencies, you are the acting attorney general -- sorry, excuse me, the attorney general but you're seeking foreign help into our domestic political investigations. >> yeah, i really worry about william barr going off and damaging some of our relationships with some of our foreign allies. remember he has never been a prosecutor in his life. he has led the justice department but he has always worked in private practice, never handling criminal cases and also remember, president trump gave him that power several months ago to declassify any information he wants, even above our director of national intelligence in relation to this investigation. and so he's traveling the world gathering information and he has the sole power to decide what gets shared with the public and what remains secret and it gives somebody the opportunity if they were so inclined to cherry pick and to pub welcomely disclose things that could be damaging to president trump's enemies and to

keep secret other things that might be important and so you know, we see these other countries and their intelligence community who just don't want to be a part of all that. >> and the thing is we've seen what happened with the ukraine with the quid pro quo. you can only imagine what william barr is saying to foreign agencies to get some of this dirt for this so called investigation. as he is going out trying to get this information from foreign intelligence agency, his own department of justice dismissed the ukraine call. >> i was just going to say, you know, we're talking about a sitting united states attorney who has been directly implicated in a transaction that congress is examining from an impeachment standpoint. and remember william barr himself could be impeached under the way our system works, could be impeached himself and we have not yet had any investigation

into his connection either with regard to conversation that donald trump had with president zelensky in which he names william barr, nor do we have yet any insight into what happened in that very strange move where the department of justice with as far as we know from public reporting, with israwilliam bar participation or at least knowledge does what's completely unusual and says we don't think this whistle-blower complaint should go to congress. this is something -- so when we see him traveling and talking to foreign governments when he's been implicated potentially in ukraine, very concerning. >> and if it's almost on queue, president trump just tweeted out while we were all having this conversation, where is the whistle-blower? so clearly he is waking up this saturday morning still thinking very much about the impeachment inquiry and what triggered it all. thank you so much. we're going to talk to you again in the next hour.

don't go too far away. coming up, the impeachment inquiry continues with state department official arriving on capitol hill just moments ago to give a closed door deposition. more "a.m. joy" right after the break. eak.ood. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. i'm off to college. i'm worried about my parents' retirement. don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement.

rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care. brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product. it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare. brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠

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.

divide america. we'll have a lot more on that. stay with us. cologuard: colon cancer screening for people 50 and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

for your worst sore throat pain try vicks vapocool drops. it's not candy, it's powerful relief. ahhhhhh! vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. even a- (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow! oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way! (burke) depends. did you cause the accident, grover? (grover) cause an accident? maybe... (bert) how do you know all this stuff? (burke) just comes with experience. (all muppets) yup. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum

it's a word that many democrats have used. it's a word that many people have used over the years, but that's a word that has been used

many times. >> welcome back to "a.m. joy." i'm ayman mohyeldin in for joy reid. you saw it there, donald trump defending his use of the word lynching on friday after a week of backlash over a tweet that read in part, "if a democrat becomes president and the republicans win the house even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the president without due process or fairness or any legal rights. all republicans must remember what they are witnessing here, a lynching." now, of course, there is no comparison between the impeachment inquiry, which is a lawful, legal process outlined in the constitution, and the brutal practice of white people lynching african-americans to control, terrorize, and dominate them. this was noted in "the new york times" -- "more than 4,000 african-american men, women and children were lynched, burned,

beaten, drowned, shot or hanged to death between 1877 and 1950. trump almost certainly doesn't know this." so, for mr. trump and his defenders, we would like to show you what lynching really meant as a longstanding practice on american soil, but first, a warning to our viewers that the image that we are about to show is disturbing. take a look at this. this is what happened to thousands of african-americans who lost their lives to antiblack terrorism. this, mr. trump is what a real lynching looks like. now, his tweet triggered the backlash it would deserve, but we wouldn't blame you if you saw this as a distraction in the news cycle, because this is exactly what trump does when he gets nervous about his status at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. the white house is feeling the heat as house democrats escalate their impeachment inquiry following bombshell testimony from trump's own top diplomat in

ukraine, confirming a crystal clear quid pro quo, something the president has denied repeatedly. and so, trump responds with his apparent go-to strategy of using race to distract the country, drum up his base, and seize the national conversation about it. but it's not just trump. it's actually more troubling than that. other elected representatives are, in fact, becoming more transparent about their bigotry. there's a whole list of it. this week alone, north dakota senator oleay larson posted a long-defunct photo that he described as congresswoman ilhan omar at a training camp in somalia. the post has been deleted and described as propaganda by omar. ironically, that's the same kind of facebook post that mark zuckerberg said he would not flag for being inaccurate or a lie. and then on monday in tennessee, county commissioner warren hurst had to say this, apparently

referring to 2020 democratic candidate pete buttigieg. >> we've got a [ bleep ] running for president." >> we've got a queer running for president. unbelievable. joining me now is maya wiley, nara hock, former state department senior adviser, julianne malvo and glen kirshner, a former federal prosecutor. great to have everyone with us. so much to break down here, maya, but let's begin with what we were just kind of trying to lay out here, the president using this word, evoking this very dark chapter in our country's history and trying to equate what he is going through, much to the surprise of republicans who came to his defense to use that word, like senator lindsey graham -- and we'll play all of these sound bites -- and the fact that he's saying, hey, other people have

used it before. >> yes, other people have used it before, generally because they're trying to advance racial equality for people who are black in the united states, drawing on that history and drawing on comparisons to that history with other violence against people who are black that currently happens in the united states. remember that as hate crimes have increased in this country, 60% of them are targeted against people who are black. so, just so we're clear on the facts. but one of the things that donald trump does consistently is basically send dog whistles to his base that says it is white people who are being pushed out or somehow disadvantaged unfairly in this country because we have paid attention to the interests of black people. he did this after charlottesville, where he called neo-nazis and white supremacists and equated them to folks who are protesting against hate,

against anti-semitism and said, well, you know, there's some bad people on both sides, as if they were somehow equivalent. they were not equivalent. he constantly tries to deflect from his own problems that he has created himself, essentially by going back to the basic instincts of people who are white and have significant racial anxiety in this country about whether or not they belong. it actually just undergirds the divisions that russia has utilized in the 2016 election. it is dangerous to democracy. it's dangerous to black people. it's dangerous to white people. >> let me play for you guys two reactions from senators on the use of the word lynching. watch. >> given the history in our country, i would not compare this to laneching. that was an unfortunate choice of words.

it is an unfair process. >> that is not the language i would use. >> this is a joke. this is a sham and this is a political lynching. >> maria teresa kumar, what do you make of the distinctions there between the republicans unable to just come out and condemn this, even in the way they used the word? they're saying it's not the choice of words that i would have used, trying to kind of soft-pedal around this conversation. >> first of all, i just want to know what happened to lindsey graham? he would be one of the first ones that would actually say -- >> nobody knows. >> it's absolutely shocking. and what lindsey graham, what mitch mcconnell, what trump, what all they do very effecti effectively is they know how to peel the scabs of hurt, of pain. and one of the most notoriously dark ages of our country's history, instead of using the ability of leadership and saying, look, america is changing, and that is good, and this is where our strength is. when we keep talking about this idea of, you know, the united states and people of color, we say the minorities. we're talk being 135 million americans. when you start talking about

disenfranchisement, words matter, consequences matter. we only need to look at what happened in el paso, texas, just two months ago, when someone who was reading and inspired by the president's tweets got into his car, decided to drive over ten hours and kill a town that was 85% latino to send a message about a mexican invasion, using the president's tweets, connecting that to the fact that the reason he was doing this was that it was directly to the voting bloc. the lynching is also a part of that history of disenfranchisement of trying to terrorize a population to ensure that we are not participating in the american fabric. this is 2019, and there's not an american who should give excuse to our past of what's happening, because the tensions are real. miley spoke a little bit about the racial bullying that is happening in this country. it is an all-time high for kids of color in the public schools, and it's not okay. i just recently gave a talk at momentous institute, only to learn that 22% of children that are between the ages of 3 and 15 in the latino community are

feeling depression. that is because we have a leadership right now that does not heel, but instead wants to maximize pain for their own political game, and that's just completely poor. >> and nayeer, the president sets the tone for how his party talks about diversity in this country, there's no doubt about it. when we play you the sound bites about others, whether it's ilhan omar or congressman pete buttigieg, his words have a ripple effect. has he now set that tone for the way other members of the republican party, whether it's on local, state, official, federal levels talk about political opponents and diversity in this country? >> oh, what donald trump has done is he's taken the conversations that people used to have behind closed doors and maybe in private because they thought it wasn't politically correct, and he's allowed people to now say they publicly. so you could easily say that, well, i guess we'd be better off -- >> is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> exactly. >> is that a good thing that we as a society can now see it publicly because we know it exists, but now that we have

this talk coming out of elected officials so openly and brazenly. >> that's part of the problem is not only is it open and brazen, but it's coming from the highest office of the land. and so, those who are seeking an answer and wondering why they're facing challenges at home, economically, they're told is economic anxiety, but it gets translated into racism and hatred towards other people, rather than looking at what is a broader system and how can we fix it? they are told that it's other people who are either coming across the border or who live amongst them that are to blame. and so, it's ultimately, donald trump has taken something that is endemic of an american history, has been a problem for a long time and he's taken advantage of a gap in memory, and some of that gap in memory is based on age and generational change, but it's also intentional. you mentioned the local level. school districts actively do not teach about slavery or talk about it as, well, some of the slaves, enslaved people were happy. our children are not getting a fair shake when it comes to learning and understanding about american history, and that is exactly what these senators from

the south, what people like donald trump take advantage of when they're looking to reshape the next generation of america. >> julianna, i'm curious to get your thoughts about how the president here has used race in his political discourse to not just mobilize his base and divide the country but has tried to pretend or to at least position himself as somehow accomplishing great things for african-americans. he is speaking at a historically black university, and interesting -- i should say, benedict university. and i believe only ten students were invited to attend that speech. and you could imagine that it has triggered a lot of reaction. we're going to get into the reaction from senators like kamala harris, but talk to us for a moment about the significance of how he has used race in this country and why he is now being honored at this university. >> well, first of all, the university did not honor him. this organization honored him,

whatever they are -- the second step organization that's looking at criminal justice. so, the university itself did not honor him. so that's really important to note. the other thing that's important to note is that students were sequestered in their dormitories. it's so outrageous. so, you had seven students attend. only ten were invited. but the rest of the student body could not leave the dormitory. they were sitting in the dormitory, even through the lunch hour, and they gave them snacks as opposed to a lunch. if i were a parent, i would be suing. now, i will say that having been a college president myself, college presidents always stuck between a rock and a hard place. it'd be hard to say, no, the president of the united states cannot come to my campus, but the campus did not invite him. this organization invited him. they first leased the college or said can we have this presidential thing on criminal justice on your campus and later after the fact they brought 45 on. he has used black people consistently as props. he has used hbcus as props. remember two years ago when he had about 70 presidents in the oval office. it was a horrible picture.

and some of my friends were there, but they said, how do you say no? if it were me, i would have gone to the meetings, but you would not have seen my photograph there. he's used -- he flew people -- understand this south carolina meeting at benedict, they flew black republicans from all over the country so that they had a full house, but they didn't have students there. so, basically, benedict college allowed itself to be used as a backdrop, but that's just like the folks who show up -- you know, this was a college-based trump rally. really, he's had a rally on campus and he used the campus. he always talks about low black unemployment rates, but the fact is that the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites, so he's normalizing inequality. he's constantly talked about what he has done, but there was a piece of legislation that provided permanent extension of hbcu funds, it got through the house and he did not use his influence to get it through the senate, so it died. so, he basically just tells lies, big lies, and big, big lies. >> glen kirshner, your thoughts

on the criminal justice debate that the president, or the argument that the president makes that he tries to have a leg to stand on with the african-american community that's saying he alone has been the only one to deliver this kind of meaningful justice or criminal justice reform. put that in its proper context of what we need to do as a country on the issue of criminal justice reform and how the president actually rates on that issue. >> yeah, you know, eamon, reducing the prison population, particularly for non-violent offenders serving unduly, lengthy sentences, is a good thing and i give trump exactly no credit for that, because what we have to do is put it into the larger context, because every time donald trump says something like comparing his circumstances to lynching, you know what he does? he's honoring this country's history, but he's honoring things like 1787's three-fifths compromise, where a black person wasn't a full person, only three-fifths of a person, and he's honoring 1857's dred scott

decision, where a black man tried to sue to have himself and his family declared citizens, and the courts said, no, you can never be a citizen of the country to which you were brought via kidnapping. he honors what is a low point in our supreme court jurisprudence. 1896 is plessy versus ferguson's horrific separate but equal doctrine where the government sanctioned segregation and prejudice. those are the things that donald trump honors when he compares his circumstances with lynching. and real quick, eamon, you mentioned jammel bowie's terrific column in yesterday's "the new york times," and i urge everyone to read it because he sets out how the donald trumps and the lindsey grahams, by saying, you know what, it's okay to call what's happening to donald trump a lynching, he is also dishonoring the emmett tills of the world, because emmett till, 14-year-old boy, lynched in 1955 in mississippi

for being disrespectful to a white woman. donald trump is honoring the people today that are in mississippi shooting up, literally, shooting up the emmett till memorial over and over again, such that it has to be reerected and re-erected. those are the kinds of people today that donald trump and lindsey graham are honoring, and it's despicable. >> eamon -- >> you know, it was 100 years after the red summer of 1919. the red summer of 1919, about 36 cities had racial disturbances initiated by whites against black people. one of the first was in chicago. there was one here in washington, d.c., and in many other cities. and these people were motivated by the racial rhetoric of woodrow wilson. you see there are other people in charlottesville also motivated by the racial rhetoric of this man. he has never had a rope around his neck. most of the people who were lynched never had the benefit that he's having with impea impeachme impeachment, they never had fair trials.

they were simply pulled out, put into jail and lynched. many of them were later found innocent, but they were dead. >> and donald trump called for the death penalty for what we now know as the exonerated five in new york city. he's never retracted from that. that's present-day facts. but more importantly, if the reality of the first chance act, that the reforms that were passed by congress, thanks to bipartisan efforts jared kushner pushed in the white house. and in a spring meeting, the news reporting showed that donald trump himself was snubbing the first chance act him -- the first step act himself and was not wanting to raise it in any of his rallies. and if you look at the rhetoric in his rallies, what he has actually done is ignored criminal justice reform. he doesn't want his base to see that he participated in it. and secondly, he has snubbed what might come next. he has never set forth how committed he will be to criminal

justice reform moving forward. and one last piece on this, because if he were really committed, he wouldn't have been in cincinnati actually talking about inner city communities, saying that the billions of dollars that democrats have sent to inner cities was stolen money. that's the language he used in cincinnati for his base in talking about cities that need resources to address racial inequality. >> but hey, he managed to win over kanye west's vote at some point, it seems on that issue. let me play for you quickly this exchange that has happened between kamala harris and donald trump, because kamala harris, senator kamala harris, who's running for president, obviously, she announced that she will not be participating engine that bipartisan justice award at benedict college after trump was given that award. as you can imagine, trump does not take very lightly, and especially because she is a black woman, he goes after her

saying "badly feeling presidential candidate kamala harris will not go to a lovely, wonderful event today because yesterday i received an award at the same event for being able to produce and sign into law major criminal justice reform legislation which will largely help african-americans." she responded "my whole life i've fought for justice for the people, something you don't know nothing about. the only part of criminal justice you can claim credit for is the criminal part." maya -- sorry, excuse me, mayeer, walk us through whether or not politically speaking this was the right move for presidential candidate kamala harris. what do you think of how she haas handled the situation and the president's response? >> well, i think you see this awakening of people refusing to be used as props as part of donald trump's political game, and for her, in particular given her background as a law enforcement official, as the attorney general of california, she certainly has to walk a fine line of making sure that people understand that she has always understood and been aware of

what the challenges are facing particular communities, even though she's been on the law enforcement side. so, i think it's important at any opportunity that kamala harris can take to remind people that being a black woman and having been on both sides, she understands very deeply the challenges that communities are facing. at the same time, we're seeing that this is folks who are trying to court donald trump in his vote, like the kanye wests of the world are getting reje rejected by the grassroots, and that's a key element about the culture change as well. >> all right, maya, nayyera, you'll both be with us later in the program. thanks to you all for your insights. thank you very much. coming up, the butt dial heard around the world. that is a true story. we'll tell you about that next. t here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! -hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

all right, so, we don't rest on the weekends. you know that by now. and apparently, neither does the impeachment inquiry. in fact, another career diplomat is scheduled to testify this morning -- yep, this saturday morning on capitol hill, behind closed doors. philip rieker is acting secretary of european and eurasian affairs, obviously someone with a lot of knowledge about what transpired with ukraine policy. joining me now from capitol hill, leigh ann caldwell, nbc news correspondent, with more on that. leigh ann, i feel sympathy for you, but i really don't, that you have to work on a saturday -- so do i. but obviously this is pretty significant. why is this happening on a saturday morning and more importantly, what are regoing to learn from his deposition and testimony?

>> reporter: well, it's happening on a saturday morning because two days of depositions were canceled because of the death of elijah cummings. so, they scheduled a new deposition today because they're on a quick timeline. they're trying to get this done as quickly as possible. philip rieker is in the room below me right now being questioned by staff and a few lawmakers as well. so, who is philip rieker? we know he's a career diplomat. his latest job was to oversee ukraine policy, and why is he important? we also know that he was raising reservations about the smear campaign that was happening in ukraine and spread on conservative media about the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. we've heard her name over and over again. he raised concerns up the state department all the way to one of pompeo's closest allies and aides. so we expect philip rieker to fill in a lot of gaps and details into what pompeo knew, when, and what he did about it.

>> thank you very much to leigh ann caldwell with that update for us, and keep us honest on whether or not we hear any information or any reaction from members of congress throughout the program and throughout the day. appreciate it. back with me once again, maya wiley, barbara mcquade and joyce vance. guys, lots to break down here, but let me start with the fact that this individual, philip rieker, continues to flesh out the story that we have that, in fact, there was a quid pro quo. at what point do you feel -- and it's hard for us because we don't have all the evidence, joyce, but at what point do you feel that you have enough to stand on and that you are running the risk of dragging this out too long where the momentum goes in favor of the gop and against you? >> this decision about when you have enough evidence is a very subjective one, and it's made on a case-by-case assessment by prosecutors who are only

concerned with the facts in the law and when they believe that they have enough evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. it's a very different calculus for congress, because congress doesn't have to prove crimes took place. they're charged with a much more political mission, which does involve elements of proof and unraveling this entire story and scenario, but congress also has to be sensitive to political issues. one thing that i don't think we'll see is this rush-rush timetable that senator mcconnell has been pushing. i think it's unlikely that everything wraps up before christmas. but at the same time, there is a calculus to be made about not letting it drag on for too long. >> there is another key witness in all of this, and i want to read you this statement from his attorney, because he is not going to be able to testify, given the fact that he finds himself in this competing legal limbo, if you will, between the legislative and executive branch. this is in reference to charles

kupperman, and his his lawyer -- "dr. kuppermman cannot satisfy the competing and irreconcilable demands of both the legislative and executive brans and there is no controlling judicial authority definitelily establishing which branch's command should prevail. under our system of government, constitutional disputes between the legislative and executive branches should be adjudicated by the judicial branch, not by private citizens like dr dr. kupperman." that is the statement from charles j. cooper. barbara mcquade, give us a sense of where this stands legally. is there a leg to stand on here when you have a competing request by the legislative branch and a member of the executive branch? >> there is. i'd want to know more about what his objection is. for example, if someone is going to want to invoke his fifth amendment rights not to incriminate himself in a criminal matter, may not want to testify about those same matters before congress, because if he

does, those could be used in the criminal proceeding. and so, you do run into that problem. we saw it most famously with regard to oliver north. he was testifying before congress, was granted immunity there, and then prosecuted in part on the basis of some of the things that he said before congress, and ultimately, that prosecution fell apart because of that issue. and so, we do respect in this country people's fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, whether it occurs in the criminal proceeding or if it occurs before the legislature. >> speaking of self-incrimination, rudy giuliani has apparently hired a defense attorney. this is according to a cnn report. and so, that raises the question in terms of what he is doing, why does he feel he needs a defense attorney. but here's the interesting thing in a tweet he posted wednesday night, saying "with all the fake news, let me make it clear that everything i did was to discover evidence to defend my client against false charges. dems would be horrified by the attacks on me, if my client was

a terrorist, but they don't believe realdonaldtrump has rights. justice will prevail." and there's an interesting dynamic here, maya, because i feel at one point everyone blames everyone. president trump was distancing himself from rudy giuliani for a little bit, saying you're going to have to talk to rudy about that, the same way he said that about michael cohen. and now you have giuliani saying everything i did was to defend my client and he's gone out and hired a defense attorney. what do you make of what's happening with trump's legal team? >> first of all, let's congratulate giuliani for finally getting an attorney and recognizing that he needs one, because i think most of us were sitting around wondering, why does he think he can represent himself right now, given what we're seeing? he's made a lot of public statements that are damaging to him and to donald trump, including the one you just said, because frankly, being someone's lawyer does not give you the right to advisement u.s. law.

it doesn't matter who. even if your client's the president, you don't get to violate u.s. law. so, number one, good that he got an attorney, and i think it's finally a recognition from rudy giuliani, as we also saw with the butt dial call, that he's recognizing he's actually got some things to contend with. you know, in terms of, you know, president donald trump, i think there it was kind of striking to me that he didn't kind of consider what his legal team needed to look like, given what the allegations were because both, as we said earlier, william barr, but also rudy giuliani were implicated in that call with president zelinsky. you know, barbara and joyce already did an excellent piece on what a mock-up indictment might look like regarding rudy giuliani, but a couple of things to say specifically to this is, as he is being investigated, there are several news reports that indicate his dealings with foreign governments may run afoul of u.s. law, even if it doesn't -- and we don't know the

extent to which it involves donald trump -- like was he a paid lobbyist on behalf of the turkish government -- >> right. >> like his former partner michael mukasey, who was also a former u.s. attorney, representing an iranian group that is the state department considers a terrorist group. mr. mukasey registered as a lobbyist for that group. apparently, rudy giuliani never did. so, all of these types of things are coming to light, and they've raised questions directly about what requests rudy giuliani made of the trump administration relevant to those clients. >> yaechd, aeah, and since you it up, the issue with the butt dialing, and the nbc reporter, he is on the record essentially trashing the bidens, talking about his need for more cash. and interestingly enough, two of the associates that have been indicted in this juligiuliani p essentially are now raising the

issue of executive privilege. joyce, is there a possibility that the communication between rudy giuliani and trump and these two ukrainian associates is shielded from congressional oversight or the judicial process? >> well, this is an administration that has never hesitated to raise the specter of legal privilege to shield its criminal activity. i don't think realistically there's a privilege that exists here. for one thing, if rudy giuliani is acting as the president's lawyer and they're having communications, but also involving these two, parnas and fruman, that would initiate the privilege, because once you have third parties involved in communications, the communication is no longer confidential, and it doesn't get the shield of the privilege for attorney-client interactions. in addition, and i think maya touches on this, there's no privilege that covers criminal activity. so, if, for instarnsion the

president and -- instance, the president and giuliani were discussing an instance that would be criminal, like offering a bribe to the ukrainians to get congressionally approved aid released, then that would not be covered by the privilege. >> barbara, before i let you go, i've got to ask you an important question. you are in ann arbor today. notre dame, eighth-ranked team in the country, playing against michigan, number 19. what's your prediction here? >> go blue! it's going to be cold and rainy in ann arbor, but the big house is going to bring home a victory for the wolverines. >> hey, my cousin teaches at notre dame, so i've got to part company with you, barbara. >> we have a little rivalry here, all right. joyce, you're the tiebreaker here. who are you going to go with? >> roll tide! >> all right. thank you very much to maya wiley, barbara mcquade, joy vance. appreciate it. up next, president obama's moving tribute to congressman elijah cummings. we're going to have that for you. >> it's been remarked that

elijah was a kind man. there's nothing weak about kindness and compassion. there's nothing weak about looking out for others. there is nothing weak about being honorable. you're not a sucker to have integrity and to treat others with respect. ers th respect your destination. ♪

(vo) the all-new subaru outback. dog tested. dog approved.

more than 4,000 people, including two former presidents and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, paid a final tribute to maryland congressman elijah cummings friday. the service in the city of baltimore featured several moving tributes, including a heartfelt eulogy from the 44th president. take a listen. >> 200 years to 300 years from now, he would say, people will look back at this moment and they will ask the question, what did you do? and hearing him, we would be reminded that it falls upon each of us to give voice to the voiceless and comfort to the

sick and opportunity to those not born to it and to preserve and nurture our democracy. (burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. (bert) even an accident brought to you by the number one! (count) i know i left it in here somewhere...ah ha! my monocle. ah, that's one. one lens! ah, ah, ah! [thunder crashing] oo! my mower! hm, well thatone chore i can cross off my list! ah, ah, ah! (burke) seen it, covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. (bert) mmm. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

lashmakes every lash fullyrom maybsensational.ork. our fanning brush volumizes every kind of lash... ...for a sensational full-fan effect. lash sensational. only from maybelline new york. we've secured the oil, and therefore, a small number of u.s. troops will remain in the area where they have the oil, and we're going to be protecting

it, and we'll be deciding what we're going to do with it in the future. took the oil. we want to keep the oil. >> donald trump declaring an end to u.s. involvement in, quote, endless wars in the middle east, and says he will bring home the 1,000 u.s. troops that have been on the ground in syria. that is not true. his defense secretary announced friday that, in fact, 500 american troops will remain in the country, not to protect our kurdish allies, believe it or not, but in fact, to protect the oil fields in eastern syria. joining me now from northern syria is richard engel, chief foreign correspondent for nbc news. good to have you with us. a lot of confusion as to what in the world the president means when he says we are securing the oil. give us your sense of what he intends to do with that. why is he using securing the oil as some kind of leverage and now telling kurds to go to that oil region? >> reporter: it is completely

impossible to understand what his intentions are, what he thinks he's doing, what he hopes to do, but what has been happening is that for the last five years, as we keep saying over and over again, the u.s. had this partnership with the kurds. the kurds built a safe haven around that partnership, around that u.s. protection, and then the u.s. decided, president trump decided he was going to pull those troops out, they were all going to come home. the kurds started to get massacred, and they're still being attacked, and now president trump is changing course and saying, okay, some troops are going to stay, some troops are going to be actually heading back in but they're not going to go back into those areas where the kurds are being attacked, the same kurds who fought with us against isis and died and lost 11,000 of their men and women. the troops aren't going to go there. they're going to go to another desert area that is largely

uninhabited, and they're going to protect some oil fields. by the way, some not very consequential oil fields, not very important, not a great source of wealth. syria is not a tremendous oil-producing country. it seems like he's scrambling for some sort of pretext to get the troops back in here because somebody got in his ear and said, president -- or somebody's doing this without his knowledge -- and they said, mr. president, you can't leave the entire region completely, because if you pull all of the troops out, the entire middle east, at least this part of the middle east -- and not just syria, i mean syria and into turkey and into iraq, potentially even into iran -- collapses into chaos. so, either he's doing this, he's looking for the oil as a pretext to keep some sort of footprint or someone, lindsey graham or fox news or whoever he listens to these days has told him, hey, there's oil there and they're using that as an excuse to keep some presence in the region so

you don't have, not collapse, because we have collapsed now, so you don't have utter total collapse. >> yeah, we knew it was something that the president wanted after the iraq war, was for america to secure the iraqi oil fields, so perhaps he is just holding onto that political campaign dream of his. richard engel live for us in northern syria. thank you, my friend. be well. joining me is malcolm nance, author of "the plot to destroy democracy" and msnbc contributor. malcolm, always a pleasure to have you on. we can run through the list of why what the president is doing is a violation of international law, securing another country's oil fields as an exploit of war, even though they haven't even announced what they're going to do with it, is internationally illegal, and yet, it seems lost on this president that he wants to use american troops to secure oil fields in a foreign country that his country is involved in militarily. >> like richard said a little bit earlier, this was a campaign

promise, that he would seize their oil and take their oil. if this is a permise just to keep troops in syria, it's the worst one that they have ever chosen. you have to understand, the only places that really have any oil are the fields to the north and northeast of darazauer. this was also an isis stronghold, but also is a place that the government of syria wants to exert their control over. last year we had an operation where russian mercenaries backed by the syrian fifth corps, which is their mercenary force, attacked that oil field and tried to take it over from the kurdish forces. we killed 250 russians -- someone has got it into donald trump's mind that this is america's interests, that oil field, and we should be ready to fight and die over that so that we can say that we got something out of it. it's absolutely incoherent, it risks our troops for a resource that we really don't need. that oil field's not very big,

and it's not very good. and also, this pushes the kurdish forces to join that very syrian government mercenary force, the fifth corps, to eventually come and attack us. >> let me play you a sound bite from nancy pelosi on how all of this has strengthened russia's hand in the region, something you know a lot more about. but let's take a listen to this first. >> i also pointed out to the president i had concerns that all roads seem to lead to putin. the russians had been trying to get a foothold in the middle east for a very long time, unsuccessfully, and now the president has given them that opportunity with the kurds reaching out to them for support in syria. >> malcolm, assess that statement for us. how has all of what president trump has done in syria strengthened putin's hand?

>> well, let's go back a little bit, back when the soviet union and a nascent russia used to operate in the eastern mediterranean. apart from a few aircraft and an occasional ship that would come to tartous, syria, russia had no real presence in the middle east. they were essentially selling some weapons systems, tanks, you know, any aircraft to essentially third-world potentates. now russia dominates one-third of the middle east, the entirety of the near east, with the exception of israel, now has russia as a strategic partner with syria, with iran. it has, you know, its economic claws into saudi arabia by selling weapons systems. it has an alliance with turkey that appears to be an axis of autocra autocrats. all of this spells america's strategic power in syria has gone to a level that we haven't had since before world war ii,

when oil was first found in that region. it's a disaster. that's the only way you can describe it. >> all right, malcolm nance, thank you very much for joining us this morning. always appreciate your insights, my friend. coming up, the book is coming from inside the white house. we'll tell you about that next. e house. we'll tell you about that next i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

i've always been i'm still going for my best... even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots.

don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

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

we have somebody in what i call the failing "the new york times" that's talking about he's part of the resistance within the trump administration. >> this person works in the administration -- >> this is what we have to deal with. it's really a disgrace. i will say this, nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed, in getting things through. so when you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration, probably who's failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons -- >> all right, so, from anonymous whistle-blowers to unnamed sources, the unidentified trump critic has become a staple of this administration. well, we're about to hear a lot more from one in particular. in fact, the author who wrote the 2018 anonymous tell-all op ed about the resistance inside

trump's white house has now come forward to write a new book. the book is titled "a warning," and it is out next month. it will expand on his or her original op ed. and according to axios, it will, in fact, also expose private conversations with president trump. back with me once again, msnbc contributor charlie sykes and nayyara hock. charlie, what do you make of having an anonymous source, or in this case, someone close to the president or within the president's orbit, coming out and writing a book? >> well, i have to say it's a little bit frustrating because i think anonymity's reached its expiration date in this administration. when you have marie yovanovitch and william taylor coming forward, laying their careers on the line, this is a point where if you have something to tell the american people, you should tell the american people, you should be willing to step up. and i think there was a lot of

that reaction early on when that "the new york times" op ed piece occurred, which is like, why are you still in the administration? why are you not willing to put your name on it? and i think we're at kind of a new phase here. so, i wonder, what will this book tell us that we don't already know? and if, in fact, it has substantive information, put your name on it, come out, let the people know what it is and who you are. >> okay, let me push back on that quickly, charlie, for a moment here. >> yeah, sure. >> what's the difference between what this individual is doing with this book coming out to the american public like you've described and, let's say for example, a whistle-blower who has gone up through the proper chain of command and, quite frankly, could have been totally road-blocked, had he not circumvented the process and at least made some kind of connections with members of congress to get this out in the public? >> well, the difference is that he did follow the proper procedures in the chain of command. he did exactly his duty. he looked around and said, i

have seen something, what am i obligated to do, what are the legal processes, and he did it. look, i want to hear this information. i want to have this story. i just wish other people in the trump administration would have the courage to come out and say, look, this is what we are seeing, what the american people need to be warned about, and i wish they would have done it earlier and i wish more of them would do it and be willing to step up the way some of the whistle-blowers that we're seeing now have been willing to do through the proper procedures or actually walking up to capitol hill and saying, this is my story. >> let me read for you guys a part of what we can expect here. this is supposed to deal with things like the president's leadership style essentially being adversarial, petty, ineffective. this anonymous author goes on to say that meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails. he engages in repetitive rants and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed, and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. nayyera, what do you make of the

fact that you have somebody this close to the president describing a set of behavior that i think two years into his presidency have been very well documented by others, they have been described by others, as charlie was saying, who have come forward and put this on the record with their names and their credibility attached? >> i mean, it strikes me as somebody trying to have their cake and eat it, too, right? they want to maintain their job and not be a direct target of president trump, because yes, it can be very painful to have the president of the united states tweeting your name and making up nicknames for you, but that's part of what the duty is at this point. if you really truly believe in a resistance, you're not going to be part of what is complicity in executing the policies that you don't believe in, and that's something that political appointees make the decision about all the time. and what we're seeing now, as charlie mentioned, is that these are civil servants and long-serving diplomats who are worried fundamentally about the direction of the country and the systems and our norms being undermined by this president, and they're even coming forward. so, i as a former political appointee have a hard time accepting that somebody is writing this truly just to be informative to the american

public when there are other ways to get this information out, whether it's through proper channels, or frankly, just putting your name on it. sally yates did that, too, when she resigned. it goes to the broader idea that people had that, oh, if there are adults in the room, they can fix this, and we're seeing that, no, really the only thing that can fix this is the impeachment process, transparency, and rule of law. >> it's hard to say because we have not read the entire bo sen administration official who claims to be as he or she describes, part of the so-called resistance, charlie, do you get any comfort knowing that there is somebody on the inside who does not want to come forward so he doesn't resign or quit his or her job because in fact, he's trying to, at least, temper some of this chaos that we've heard about? >> well, that's the story that we've heard for the last three years, right, that they were serving the president, they were complicit in the process because they needed to be that adult in the room who would prevent the president from going off the

rails, but here we're at, at the moment, and the president clearly is not listening to anyone. if there are adults in the room, they're not having any influence and so, we're kind of past that point. many people have rationalized their service in this administration as controlling donald trump. well, that mission has failed, and i think that this is the point at which more people ought to come out. let me just underline this point. look, i think there are a lot of voices, people who would like to come out and talk about all of this. they know they're going to be attacked. they know that there is a price, but there's strength in numbers. and the more that are willing to stand up, i think they become role models for other people who would stand up, and this is the moment to do that. >> do you think, nayyera, that somebody like jim mattis, who's obviously come forward with his resignation and objection to the president's foreign policy in syria -- should someone like him be praised for the way he

resigned? although while he was in the administration, some pretty bad things happened under his watch, and he was, also at one point, as charlie said, considered the adult in the room? >> i think that was, again, two or three years ago, penal were walking into this thinking this would be any other presidency and you should serve the way you would any other president, with a sense of dignity and loyalty towards the country and dignity to the office. but when the president of the united states himself is not comporting himself that way, is undermining the constitution -- earlier this week, actually even called the emoluments clause phony, like the phony parts of the constitution. we have every day seeing evidence that this individual is undermining the very system that we believe in and that we are supposed to be working towards that keep us coherent as a country. yes, it is much bigger than doing the job in the quote/unquote the right way. jim mattis also is a particular example. he took off the uniform and took a politically appointed position. as a politically appointed person, it is part of your job to speak out and to help guide the president the right way, and he has full ability now as a

private citizen to speak out. i think it's his duty to actually explain to the country why it is that donald trump has arrived at these decisions in syria and put our national security at risk. >> all right, nayyera haq and charlie sykes, thank you for joining us for the past two hours. really appreciate it. we have a lot more after the break. ppreciate it we have a lot more aerft the break. (woman) when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. (vo) align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. (woman) you could say align puts the "pro" in probiotic. so where you go, the pro goes. (vo) go with align. the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies. with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.

annoepidemic fueled by juul use with their kid-friendly flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c. that is our show for today. i am ayman mohyeldin filling in

for joy reid, who is under the weather today. we hope to have her back soon. up next, alex witt has the latest. >> we sure do. we of course want joy back and healthy soon. so thank you, ayman. by the way, i'll be waking up with you early for "morning joe" this week. >> i'll bring the coffee. >> thank you! that's what i'm going to need. thank you for that. welcome to all of you. a very good day from here at msnbc headquarters in new york, high noon in the east, 9:00 a.m. in the west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." a new name took the stage in the impeachment drama. why donald trump and mike pompepompeo may not like what he has to say. event diary, words that could end a presidency. "washington post" columnist dana milbank joins me. a $10 billion deal raising lots of questions. did the president play a role in microsoft winning a pentagon contract?