miller, betsy woodruff, jonathan. most of all, to you for watching. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. >> welcome to monday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. we have new major developing stories tonight. there are a lot of developments in the wake of this weekend's u.s. military operation that killed isis's leader abu bakr al-baghdadi. including, what it means politically for a white house embroiled in an impeachment inquiry. and that's where we're starting tonight. with the breaking news that house democrats are now going to hold a formal vote on impeachment. in a letter to house colleagues released this afternoon, speaker pelosi says they will be voting as the investigation enters a

new phase, which will include public hearings. pelosi specifically notes that this vote is partially to dispel quote the baseless claim that house of representatives impeachment inquiry lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. a senior congressional source tells nbc news that this vote is expected thursday. we should note we don't know yet exactly what this vote is. democrats have argued that they have the powers they need without a full vote in the house. moments ago, the white house responded to the news claiming this proves that the democrats have been conducting an unauthorized impeachment proceeding. and like i said, this is all happening in the wake of a major foreign policy achievement for the trump administration after killing isis's leader. you're looking right now at footage of the raid site. in the aftermath of the u.s.'s military operation in syria. tonight, there was also intensifying fallout as the

president is seizing on the raid to paint his political rivals as dangerous leakers and overly obsessed with impeachment. today, he doubled down on his decision to break with precedent and not give top democrats a heads up about the raid. in fact, he and his allies are specifically citing the impeachment inquiry as justification for leaving some democrats, like intelligence committee chairman adam schiff, in the dark. let's get to the latest from our reporters on the ground. nbc's kristin welker is at the white house and nbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill. guys, welcome. garrett, this is a move that's being seen by some as nancy pelosi may be caving to republicans' demands. is that what happened here? or are democrats trying to paint this as something different? >> well, it's interesting to see the spin already taking shape here. republicans are painting this as a backtrack by pelosi. democrats are holding their fire a little bit until they meet

tomorrow morning and hear more from pelosi about what this vote will do. but let's talk about what it's not. this is not a vote to formally open an impeachment inquiry. something that republicans have been calling for for the last month now. this is, in fact, a vote to formalize the steps going forward here. this is not about the depositions that have been taking place. it's not about the closed-dooring -- or closed-door testimony we've gotten. what this will do, we understand, is lay out the procedures going forward for open hearings, for the release of the transcripts that have been compiled more than 70 hours so far with another half dozen or so of these depositions on the book. and it will give republicans something they've asked for. it will give a little bit more rights to the president when they go forward to allow the president's council, for example, to perhaps be present in some of these things. so democrats are being very careful. if you read the entire letter nancy pelosi's office released, the first three paragraphs essentially say, we don't have to do this. and then the next couple say, but we're going to anyway and

here's what we plan to do. so it is intended to be a forward-looking document here. forward-looking resolution when it gets to the floor by thursday. but i think you will see a very aggressive effort by republicans to paint this as somehow democrats acknowledging that what they were doing wasn't working. i do not think that's the case. but we'll see what the actual resolution looks like when we get the text probably tomorrow. >> garrett, when the white house or republicans or the white house and this administration refuses to allow members of the administration or tries to stop them from testifying and -- and they no longer have this in the way this idea that it's not a formal impeachment inquiry vote, how are democrats going to use that? >> well, look. i mean, whether the democrats had done a formal vote 30 days ago or whether -- >> but it was their excuse. it was their excuse. i know it doesn't matter. it was their excuse. >> well, but that's the whole point, right? it's not a legal -- there's not a legal element to the vote -- to a formal inquiry here. i mean, there was a judge on friday who said as much here in d.c. but it does remove a

talking point. it removes a public-facing argument for white house officials to deny testimony to people. but remember, even as we speak right now, there's a matter before district court here in d.c. from someone trying to litigate whether or not the trump administration has the right to block anyone from coming forward who works directly for the president. so the legal maneuvers here are separate from the pr maneuvers here and i think that's an important distinction to make. >> how is the white house responding to this, kristen? >> well, we just got a response moments ago, katy. let me read you the official response from stephanie grisham who says we won't be able to comment fully until we see actual text but speaker pelosi is finally admitting what the rest of america already knew, that democrats were conducting an unauthorized impeachment proceeding refusing to give the president due process and their secret, shady close door depositions are completely and irreversibly illegitimate. here's why this is significant. and it comes against the backdrop of this conversation that you're having with garrett

about the pr of this, katy. this is essentially going to strip them of their argument, right? that this is somehow illegitimate. that they can't comply with it. and that's why you have the president's allies saying, look, they need a broader, more robust strategy for dealing with some of these revelations that are coming out on capitol hill. bill taylor, for example, his 15-page opening remarks that were made public that essentially laid out a link between the president withholding material aid to ukraine. and the ukrainians launching investigations into the democrats in 2016. the white house has yet to respond to that. they want to make the case that, look, we're not going to respond to anything that has been submitted in these proceedings because it's ill legitimate. notably, president trump just today, katy said that he wants to see his allies stop fighting on process and start to fight on the substance. so we'll have to see if that's what starts happening. i am told that the communications team is going to be beefing up their strategy for

responding because they knew that democrats ultimately were going to open these proceedings to the public. it is not unusual for the early stages of these types of congressional investigations to take place behind closed doors. it's something that senator lindsey graham, for example, supported during the bill clinton impeachment proceedings. so now it's going to get a lot more complicated for the white house and there will be increasing pressure on this administration to do exactly what the president said today, which is to respond to the substance, katy. >> let me ask you this. the president announced the killing of baghdadi over the weekend. he did not tell speaker pelosi. he did not tell minority leader chuck schumer. or adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee in the house. his reasoning was that they were a bunch of leakers. hogan gidley was talking to your colleague peter alexander and he couldn't name one instance where nancy pelosi has leaked information. how is the white house

responding to the criticism that president trump trusts vladimir putin, who was told about this, vladimir putin more than the speaker of the house who is third in line for the presidency? >> they've been digging in amidst all of this criticism, katy, and essentially making the argument that as a tactical matter, they needed to make the russians aware of at least the fact that they were going to be moving into that area. now, to your point about the fact that the president didn't alert top democrats, you're absolutely right. hogan gidley today essentially making the argument he doesn't trust them with this sensitive information. but when my colleague peter alexander pressed him for a specific example, what specifically has nancy pelosi leaked out, he couldn't provide one example to that effect. he did, however, point to the broader implication here by the white house that top democrats have been selectively, they would argue, leaking parts of the testimony that have been unfolding on capitol hill in recent weeks. >> so it appears as punishment

for the impeachment inquiry, they are not going to trust the other half of congress with national security issues. >> well, and i think it underscores, katy, the fact that this is an intensifying standoff between the white house and capitol hill. >> no doubt about that. kristin welker. thank you very much garrett haake, thank you as well. >> for more, i'm joined by nick. commentary magazine associate editor and contributor nora rothman. and joining us from d.c. chief public affairs official and also a contributor carrine. everybody, welcome. nick confisori, i want to go back to the vote that nancy pelosi is going to hold. how do you see it? >> it's cost nothing to do it and what they want to do is knock away the -- arguments. so impeachment is all politics. it's all political. and the democrats are winning in court on legitimacy of it.

but they have to win in the court of public opinion, as well. and democrats want people to focus on the facts that are at play here. and the gop wants everybody to focus on the process. >> yeah. >> how it came act. on the whistle-blower. his mysterious origins. >> they haven't defended the president on any of the content. >> exactly. so pelosi is trying to knock away the bricks from the gop counterargument and put as much pressure as she can on them on the facts. >> why now, though? i guess is my question. why not two weeks ago? >> well, among republicans, you've heard either explicitly or implicitly the idea that democrats don't have the votes for this kind of impeachment vote. and to challenge them to take it would be to call their bluff. well, they're going to take it. something of a victory for republicans, they now to get to give some legitimacy to the claim that the impeachment process was too opaque. now, they know democrats have the votes and, b, that a lot of this deposition testimony that hasn't leaked out will leak out and that's going to be damaging.

>> so what's going to happen when all that information is out there? when there are public hearings. when it's no longer being conducted behind closed doors. when they can no longer say we're refusing to cooperate because we don't think it's legal. are they just going to double down and say because you didn't hold one two weeks or a month ago, then we're not going to let you have any legitimacy with what you've heard so far? it seems that way. kevin mccarthy tweeted basically that much. >> the fact of the matter is you go to war with the army you've got, right? you can only make -- >> not a very strong army it seems. >> but, you know, republicans are not challenging this, you know, the substance when talking about procedure. they are challenging the substance. it's just not terribly convincing. you -- >> well, they're saying abuse of power. >> who said we should have strings attached to any foreign aid. there should be quid pro quo with any country we are providing aid and intelligence and that's true to an extent but the substance is not when it advances the president's domestic political interests as

opposed to national interests. >> that's a decision not being made by republicans. carine, how do you see this? >> i think this is a very smart move by nancy pelosi. what she is essentially doing is she's calling donald trump's bluff, right? and republicans' bluff, which is as you were all discussing, republicans have been talking about process and process, look what they did last week. it was just all very, very insane. and she's like, okay. i'm going to take away that talking point. now, let's see if you guys can defend the actual substance. and i think that's the direction that we're headed here, which is a smart strategy, which is a good strategy for democrats to do. and we've always known that democrats were going to make this public. was going to have public hearings. and now, she's saying, okay, here's the next step. like, we have to see the language of the resolution, which we'll probably see in the next day or so. but this is what it seems like is happening. she's taking control. she's saying, this is where we're going. and here's the thing, katy, the public opinion is on their side

right now. and so they can move forward in this way. the democrats can. >> it is. the impeachment numbers have been ticking upward but they've slowed down recently. so i wonder if it's an acknowledgment that at some point sooner than later they do need to bring the hearings into the public sphere or at least release full transcripts so people can read it for themselves. although, i'm not sure how many people are going to be reading transcripts. i think public hearings might be more effective if you're trying to convince the public. normally, these two things would not be bunched together. the president killing the world's number one terrorist and an impeachment inquiry. normally, i think that these two things would be pretty separate regardless if they were happening concurrently. but this president has brought them together by saying that he wasn't minority leader -- the information about this raid because he didn't trust them on the impeachment inquiry. >> i me you know, teapot.

unfortunately, for the president, i thinks going to last as long and be as important in the long run as president obama's was for killing bin laden was. >> i just wonder if we're just so calcified at this point as a country that you're not going to convince somebody one way or another. the president kills baghdadi, you know, saturday night. or the president kills -- americans killed him with the help of our allies. he announces it sunday morning. sunday night, he's at a baseball game. i know d.c.'s a democratic place. widely democratic place but at the same time, if he's not going to get cheered for that in that moment, is there anything that he can do to break through? >> well, so, the numbers that you were talking about earlier seem to capture rough overlap with job disapproval. so generally, impeachment now has become a proxy for do you approve of this president's performance in office? and if you capture all those,

you do have a majority but it's not necessarily convincing anyone who's perhaps persuadable. the president now has some breathing room. he can say accurately that, you know what, barack obama didn't share information with congress regarding the deal to remove bergdol from captivity. i didn't trust you. as members of congress to keep this information close. and as a result, i'm -- i was following precedent. and also, it gives the president the opportunity to say to his fellow republicans, look, you have some breathing room now. you don't have to be on top of me. you don't have to be criticizing me constantly. you can give me a little praise. you saw people like mitt romney who have been chomping at the bit for an opportunity to stop criticizing this opportunity make the most of it. >> for two days maybe. but the problem here for the president, and i think you're right, but the problem here for the president is he is incapable of building on a news cycle. he's -- he's incapable on his own terms and his white house is not well organized to build on a news cycle. >> well, he likes to fight. >> we're going to have three

news cycles about how it's so unfair that he isn't getting enough credit for this. and the complaint's going to overtaint the success in political terms. i guarantee you. >> if this doesn't change the president's support, if he doesn't convince anyone new to like him after this, is the same thing true for the democrats in the impeachment inquiry? that they have who they're going to have and no matter what comes out right now, it's not going to change how the country views this president? >> well, you know, it's a weird time that we're in. and katy, you know the president better than we all do. you have some g but, look, we have to remember this is a president that is historically unpopular. just like look at the gallop polling, right? he's never hit 50% ever in his almost three years of his first term. and he's incredibly divisive. so everything that he does is trumpion. right? he puts politics in everything. killing al-baghdadi, our special forces on the ground with the

raid and intelligence forces. it was a somber moment but he politicized it right away within hours. actually, in that same press conference when he took the q and a and he's just not able to, like nick said, build on it. build on a news cycle that could be helpful to him. and now, he's talking about, you know, he didn't tell democrats who should be -- who should have been told. it doesn't matter if you are a democrat or a republican sitting in the white house. you let leadership know. i mean, this has been the protocol time and time again. and what does he do? he politicized it. he says that they would leak. meanwhile, everything that leaks in this administration comes straight from the white house. i mean, this is who donald trump. it will never, ever change. >> yeah. i mean, i think carine's got a good point. do you guys disagree with this? >> no, i think the point we're all making really is -- >> is that it is what it is at this point. >> well, aside from politicizing things -- >> well, i just wonder -- >> he is not bin laden.

americans are not broadly familiar with this man. he -- >> but even if he was bin laden, this is a president who's done so much up to this point, everybody has an opinion of him. everybody feels strongly about donald trump. is there anything that can change it one way or another? >> i think maybe a sliver in the middle. >> the president's going to get high marks for the elimination, the neutralization of the top terrorist target on the planet earth and he deserves them. he has taken some actions in the last couple of weeks that have reduced substantially our strategic position in the region and made this operation harder. he deserves criticism for that. but at the same time, you make this call and it's always a difficult call to send american forces into very hostile territory. it was an unqualified success for this president and he does deserve credit for it. the problem which i think nick is absolutely dead on is that he doesn't have the footprint and the national imagination that osama bin laden did and as a result, this will be a very short news cycle. >> thank you, nick, noah, and

carine, you're going to stay with us so don't go too far. as the house plans to enter a new phase of the impeachment inquiry, we're learning more today about what led up to this moment and who knew what when regarding trump administration policy toward ukraine. two people with knowledge of the matter tell nbc news that the white house was alerted as early as mid-may that pressure from rudy giuliani and one of president trump's ambassadors was rattling the new ukrainian president. joining me now is someone who has heard directly from the ukrainian president about the pressure he was feeling from giuliani. connecticut democratic senator chris murphy. he met with ukrainian president zelensky this summer and is a member of the senate foreign relations committee. for viewers who might not know, will you just tell us what the president told you? zelensky, that is. >> sure. i was in ukraine in early september. this is after we knew that the aid had been cut off. but before we knew the extent of this quid pro quo.

and i went there because as early as may, i was hearing reports from my friends in ukraine. i've been involved in u.s./ukraine relations for the better part of the last six years. i had been hearing from my friends in ukraine that zelensky was deeply concerned about those overchu ov overtures he was getting from rudy giuliani and others to get involved in the president's political politics. and you know, you don't need really good reporting to know that a new president who has never been in elected office before like zelensky would, of course, be very concerned that the president was sending over his political fixers to try to get him involved in american politics. so i was hearing that in the spring. and eventually, i made it over there along with senator ron johnson in early september. and i raised this issue with zelensky. i said to him, it would be very bad for ukraine to get involved in an american election. and if he wants to do business with the united states, he should be talking to the state department, not to the president's political lawyers. and he agreed. i mean, he gave a very strong

answer back. said i want to stay out of american elections. i want to have a above the board relationship with the united states. and it was only a few days later that we realized the extent of this corruption and how much pressure zelensky actually was under. >> let me ask you about what's going on capitol hill. nancy pelosi is going to hold an impeachment inquiry vote. what do you think of that mosqumosquve? >> well, legally, i don't think it's necessary. recent court decisions have confirmed the fact that the house doesn't have to take an official vote. >> so why are they? >> i mean, i think you're better off if there's really no reason not to do it. to answer your critics. >> why didn't she do it two weeks ago when they started complaining about this? >> yeah. well, again, i don't think it's necessary. i can't answer as to why she didn't make the decision earlier. but the fact of the matter is republicans have interestingly shifted all of their criticism on to the process because they can't really have a debate on the facts. i mean, it's now clear as day

that the president was trying to trade access to the white house and american security aid for election interference. and so i think this is a critical moment as the facts are becoming pretty impossible for republicans to refute. for speaker pelosi to take these process arguments off the table, which she will do with this vote on thursday. and then republicans will be left to decide whether they actually want to continue to defend this president's actions. >> let me ask you about the mcconnell/graham resolution that could potentially come to the floor this week. basically, calling the democratic process unfair and illegal. saying the president needs to have due process. now that nancy pelosi is going to be holding a vote, what does that do to that resolution? >> well, i mean, it would have been a mistake to waste time in the senate floor debating that resolution in the first place. given that the minority has full access to these interviews. republicans are let in the room and there's going to be. there always was going to be an

open process after these private interviews took place. but now, that pelosi is holding this vote, i would hope that they'll shelf this resolution. again, i think the resolution speaks for itself. republicans in the senate, the only sort of way that they can answer trump's concerns, they aren't defending him strongly enough, is to complain about process because even republicans in the senate by and large are not willing to defend what the president did. hopefully, this resolution now doesn't come before us for debate or a vote. >> correct me if you have not been paying attention but at some point, if impeachment gets handed over to the senate, if the house votes to impeach, you're going to have to be a judge of the impeachment articles. you, i presume, have been paying attention to what's been going on in some of those depositions with some of that testimony, at least the stuff that's been released publicly. can you tell me what, if any of it, has been significant to you? >> well, i think the scope of this corruption is just

continually stunning. the fact of the matter is that there were multiple high-level officials in the state department who were engaged in trying to get the ukrainians to investigate and help destroy the president's political rivals. and clearly, that was only in exchange ultimately for u.s. security assistance. so i understand that i ultimately am a juror. i understand that i don't know what the articles of impeachment are yet. that might be sent to the senate. but i've been pretty clear that the conduct that has thus far been proven, that has been testified to by republicans and career state department officials before the impeachment inquiry, certainly looks impeachable to me. >> senator chris murphy. thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks, katy. >> and ahead, more on the breaking news that house democrats are moving forward with a vote on impeachment as a former deputy to john bolton and a key figure in the impeachment inquiry refuses to come to the hill. t inquiry refusetos come to the

hill some farms grow food. 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. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened;

as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. you should be mad that this is your daily commute. you should be mad at people who forget they're in public. and you should be mad at simple things that are unnecessarily complicated. but you're not mad, because you're trading with e*trade, which isn't complicated. their app makes trading quick and simple so you can strike when the time is right. don't get mad, get e*trade and start trading today.

thbecause with nband after thleague pass on xfinityr. you can watch the out of market games you want- all season long. and with the all-new xfinity sports zone, you get everything nba all in one place- even notifications about your favorite teams. watch the dropped dimes, monster blocks, and showstopping dunks. plus get instant access to your teams with the power of your voice. that's simple, easy, awesome. say nba league pass into your voice remote to check out a free preview. don't miss out.

welcome back. tonight, we're learning that the full house will vote on impeachment procedures on thursday. that is the same day national security council official tim morrison will be on capitol hill to testify in the impeachment inquiry. he is expected to be the most blockbuster appearance this week. this morning, a former advisor to john bolton was scheduled to be deposed. but he was a no-show. instead, asking a judge if he is required to comply with the subpoena from house dems. nbc news correspondent leanne caldwell is on capitol hill. leanne, what should we expect from moreson's testimony on thursday? and is there anything more to the timing of that vote being taken and morrison testifying? >> well, i don't think that the vote timing and morrison's testimony are necessarily linked. the reason for the vote is because democrats are saying that they're now ready. they're getting ready, i should say, to move to the next phase

of this impeachment inquiry, which is going to be a more public phase. and so they're saying this vote is, in fact, just to change house rules so that they can do the specific procedural things to move forward with this inquiry. they're rejecting republican arguments that this is an attempt to backtrack. trying to say this is an official vote on impeachment. democrats say that's not the case. it's just a procedural vote to move forward. now, as far as morrison's testimony, he's going to be just the latest that has been asked of people who worked with john bolton. who worked in the national security council to come before -- before the congressional investigators. we know that -- we know that kupperman -- i totally blanked on his name -- we know that kupperman -- >> it happens. occasionally, i forget how to say battleship. i don't know why. kupperman. kupperman was supposed to testify today. but he's now asking a judge if he's required to do so because the white house was trying to

invoke something called constitutional immunity? >> right. so kupperman's saying that he's between a rock and a hard place. he's saying, look, i don't want to defy my former boss, the president, who's not letting me come here. and i don't want to defy congress, who wants me to come testify. so he's saying, oh, i can't do anything about it. it's not up to me to make this decision. so, hey, judicial branch, you guys make this decision for me. now, democrats say that that's an absolute copout. that of course he is required to come before the congressional investigators. and they're saying that they're not going to wait around. they're not going to wait for the court system. they're just going to continue moving along with their investigation and putting this in some sort of impeachment or obstruction bucket should it come to that. >> so does this play any differently if there is a public hearing on this? if the vote goes through and -- and there is now suddenly public hearings when people don't show up for house subpoenas?

>> that's what democrats are hoping. that there are -- what nancy pelosi put in her dear colleague letter that just went out in the last hour, two hours, she said that there's going to be more consequences if people like kupperman don't show up when they are subpoenaed. she's saying that this is going to be an escalation, i should say, of this impeachment inquiry. it's going to move to a new phase. it's going to have a lot more repercussions and consequences for the administration if they continue to stonewall. >> and what's going on with katy hill? she resigned today. >> she did resign today. it's been a difficult week for katie hill. there's a lot of different elements of this story. the first is that she appears to be a victim of revenge porn. there's these -- these very salacious photos of her that were leaked presumably by her husband. put out there to conservative media. but then there were -- there's

other allegations that she was also involved with a staffer here on capitol hill, which is against house rules. she has denied that part of it. but it has just become too much. she decided to resign. she put out a really emotional statement and video today saying that it was the hardest decision of her life. and really, this is the first woman we know who has been -- who has had to resign from congress in this me too era. >> leanne caldwell. leanne, thank you very much. and ahead, what john kelly says was his parting piece of advice to president trump. and how the white house is firing back. rump and how the white house is firing back. it's a beautiful piece of land.

so why haven't you started building? tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ i suffered with psoriasis i felt gross. people were afraid i was contagious. i was covered from head to toe. i was afraid to show my skin. it was kind of a shock after... i started cosentyx. i wasn't covered anymore. four years clear. five years now. i just look and feel better. see me. cosentyx works fast to give you clear skin that can last. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx.

before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine... ...or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i look and feel better with cosentyx. five years is just crazy. see me. ask your dermatologist if cosentyx could help you move past the pain of psoriasis. walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules. let me tell you something, for outback. i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more.

a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. no one has identified an example of nancy pelosi revealing national security secrets so why did the president say she couldn't be trusted? >> there have been many examples of democrats leaking information

to members of the media. you guys cover it. you guys print it. it happens all the time. so there is no reason to think that they wouldn't do so in whatever instance they want as long as it tries to destroy this president. they've done it time and time again. >> welcome back. the white house is facing some tough questions after the president broke with precedent and did not give top democrats a heads up about the al-baghdadi raid. the president and some of his allies on capitol hill have justified that decision, in part, by painting democrats as overly distracted and obsessed with the impeachment inquiry. meanwhile, democrats are barrelling ahead with their investigation. the panel is back. nick, karine, and noah. everybody, welcome. talked in general terms about the impeachment inquiry and what he didn't like and claimed that there are all sorts of details that democrats are leaking out. there's no indication that democrats are leaking out all of those details and republicans have certainly been behind some other leaks. i'm thinking of -- what's his face? in the, you know, leanne just

had a -- leanne just had a brain blank and now i'm having a brain blank. devon nunez. when he was chairman of the house intelligence committee did that as well. but in -- in trying to find a specific example of nancy pelosi leaking national security information, hogan gidley could not do that. what does it mean that we have become so entrenched in partisan politics that on a matter of national security, third in line to the presidency doesn't get a heads up? >> it means that the president doesn't like the democrats and is really angry at them and this was just an act of spite. >> is that just precedent going forward? is this the way it's always going to be now? when republicans are in charnley, they're going to talk to each other. when democrats are in charge, they're only going to talk to each other. >> i suspect when there is a future president of a different party or same party, some of these old modes will come back. >> you sure about that? >> this is one comes back. >> it's pure spite.

even hogan gidley can't really explain this nancy pelosi. >> karine, you're laughing. >> i hope so. i think i'm with you, katy. i hope that we go back to at least protocol norms after trump is gone. i'm just -- it's just -- it's just baffling to see him continue to do this. i mean, essentially, katy, he's behaving like a toddler, right? he doesn't like the fact that he's being impeached. but the -- the reason he's being impeached is because he did it to himself. he admitted in -- in the crime. his lawyer admitted that he did it. his chief of staff admitted that he did it, which is ask a foreign government to help him get dirt on a political opponent. i mean, he did and he -- he said he did. and so now, he's behaving like a toddler and politicizing everything. and making it about the democrats and totally, totally going against protocol on a national security issue. and that is dangerous. >> i just haven't seen examples of us coming back together since partisan politics have really

taken root in this country in the last few decades. i think we've only gotten more partisan. people have only gotten angrier and the divide has only gotten wider. >> well, that's true. it's quantifiable, in fact, in data. nevertheless, there are events that can bring the country back together. most of them are horrible and you don't want to contemplate them. i will say that i think this is probably a little bit, to borrow a phrase, tempest in a teapot. this is not the first time this happened. as we were saying before, the bergol situation is a good example of when the shoe is on the other foot, it is not protocol. carry's right. this is not supposed to happen but it does. >> let's play a couple of moments from the -- from the news conference yesterday that didn't get a lot of airtime today. trump announcing the baghdadi death. you know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world. perhaps other than donald trump. we would have said to the kurds,

hey, do you mind moving over seven miles because they were in the middle mostly. so you have seven or eight miles. could you mind moving over? they can't walk to our country. we have lots of water in between our country and them. if you're a normal person, you say, knock, knock, may i come in? the fact is that they blasted their way into the house in a very heavy wall and it took them literally seconds. by the time those things went off, they had a beautiful, big hole and they ran and got everybody by surprise. the helicopters took some shots but we think that these were people that were just random people that don't like to see helicopters i guess. to this day, i get people coming up to me. they said you know what one of the most amazing things i've ever seen about you? is that you predicted that osama bin laden had to be killed before he knocked down the world trade center. >> those are some of the sound bytes that didn't get a lot of play today because they were secondary to the, you know,

announcement that baghdadi had died. there's also concern. this is nbc news reporting that trump spilled a little too many sensitive details act the raid in that 47-minute news conference. >> it's not quite tom clansy that rendition of the raid. and we've seen the president before, unfortunately has a tendency to share a little too much in these moments. i guess we'll find out if that's true. but he obviously wants to relish this as a big moment in his presidency. he always wanted that head-to-head matchup with president obama. >> he took a lot of credit for it. >> he did. in fact, i recall or i read recently that president trump is on record on twitter saying that -- that -- that president obama shouldn't have taken any credit. >> it was the navy s.e.a.l.s. who did it. >> let's talk about that. hold on. it was intelligence that led us to baghdadi. it was a close partnership with the kurds who passed along a lot of very sensitive and crucial

information that allowed us to figure out where he was. richard engel was on air a little bit earlier talking about one person in particular who actually was able to pass on dna information from baghdadi to the americans so they'd be able to confirm it was him once they went into that raid. at the same time, i mean, these are alliances that the president has demeaned. partnerships that he's diminished. he's pulling out of syria. he's abandoning the kurds. i mean, there are national security experts who have said to reporters that this raid happened successfully not because of the president but in spite of him. >> and that's not wrong. the intervening hours since this raid have demonstrated how crucial our partnership with the kurds was and remains. and how they continue to work on our behalf even as the president says, you're going to have to abandon your homeland and be functionally, ethnically

cleansed. it doesn't make a whole lot of tactical sense to do what we did in hindsight because we now have reports that special forces are beginning to retake positions that we had left hours ago, days ago, less than a week ago. we now have mechanized, confirmed mechanized deployments that are going to be in these very sparsely populated areas in eastern syria. we have a bigger footprint now in syria than we did when the president said i'm getting out of syria. and in the interim, we've lost a lot of strategic initiative. we're under less advantageous circumstances than we were the first time. it is the story of american deployment's abroad for the last 50 years. >> can i get one other topic in here, karine, for you. john kelly saying if the president surrounds himself with yes men, then he's going to get impeached. john kelly was chief of staff during a lot of the mueller investigation. did he do a good job of keeping the president in check? >> yeah. you know, katy, john kelly was an enabler. you know, donald trump broke the

law while john kelly was the chief of staff and after john kelly was gone. and so that is, you know, that is just the reality of unfortunately where john kelly is in this place of -- in this place of history when it comes to donald trump. and now, he sits on a board of, you know, of a company that's profiting off of the separation of kids from their -- yeah, exactly. and so he -- you know, he's not -- you know, he's not a hero in this story at all when it comes to the trump administration. >> nick, karine, and noah. guys, thank you very much. amid all this politics, there is a very big story happening out west right now. devastating wildfires across california. in a statement, the white house says the president is monitoring the situation and that more federal resources have been made available to california. nearly 200,000 people have been displaced as flames engulf large swaths of the wine country. it will take days for firefighters to get to the

kincade fire and get it under control. homes have been flattened by the flames and more than 65,000 acres are scorched. and in southern california, another brush fire is also forcing evacuations and cutting off key roadways. nba star lebron james and former california governor arnold schwartz anythinger are among the evacuees. several homes have already been destroyed there as well. ahead, how much does the baghdadi raid al actually help president trump? and how much does it hurt isis? that's next. hurt isis that's next. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. 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.

♪ nothing is everything 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. to earn j.d. power chevdependability awards... across cars... trucks... and suvs. four years in a row. since more than 32,000 real people... just like me. and me. and me. took the survey that decided these awards. it was only right that you hear the good news from real people... like us. i'm daniel. i'm casey. i'm julio. only chevy has earned j.d. power dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs. four years in a row. hi, i'm nfl player montez sweat old spice, sweat, is just my last name. i don't represent sweat and won't be a party to this at any time. that's not what we heard. i represent sweat, and it's party time.

♪ corrupt president in our nation's history. when i called for his impeachment two years ago, washington insiders and every candidate for president said it was too soon. but i believed then, as i do now, that doing the right thing was more important than political calculations. and over eight million people agreed. we proved that there is no challenge that americans can't meet when we work together. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. and with their pick washington selects, montez sweat sweat? in the nfl? not on our watch. old spice's superior defense against sweat that's my last name. in the nfl. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options. wh(fake gagging noises) ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. some farms grow food. 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.

♪ we killed isis leader al-baghdadi. he's dead. he's dead as a doornail. and he didn't die bravely either. i will tell you that. he should've been killed years ago. another president should have gotten him. >> welcome back. president trump today touting the killing of abu bakr al-baghdadi. but also, blaming former president obama for not killing the isis leader during his presidency. with me now is nick rasmison who was director of the national counterterrorism center during the obama administration and was in the situation room during the mission that killed osama bin laden. he remained in that position for the first year of the trump administration. he's now an nbc national

security and intelligence analyst. nick, welcome. thank you very much for joining us. as somebody who was sitting in the situation room while osama bin laden was killed, what is your reaction to, one, the president saying that obama should have gotten baghdadi and, two, saying that osama bin laden was not that big of a deal until the world trade center happened? >> well, i don't quite know how to react to that, katie. of course, getting baghdadi was a priority for the obama administration and working in partnership with the iraqi forces and at a later stage in cooperation with the syrian kurds. take us into the current phase of the fighting in iraq and syria, it was always a priority. but tracking down these terrorist leaders is a metropolit meticulous, challenging bit of work. it takes a long time.

and often once you come across a key piece of intelligence it seems to happen quickly. that seems to be what triggered the onset of this investigation months ago. i wouldn't necessarily think of it as legitimate criticism that we weren't going after abu bakr al baghdadi because of course we were. >> let me ask you this other question. the president was very forthcoming in describing how he said baghdadi died. he said he didn't die a hero. he died a coward. he was crying, whimpering and screaming and he brought three kids with him to his death. he knew the tunnel had no end. to your experience, crying, whimpering, screaming, is that information the president would have been able to obtain in watching this raid or in speaking to people afterwards? >> i'm not sure where he would have gotten that information based on the way he was monitoring the operation in the situation room. and i would actually rely much more on what you're hearing out of the pentagon, either from sources at the podium. i understand the chairman of the

joint chiefs today was, of course, speaking about the operation. and in coming days we'll hear more about it from the actual operator operators, i would imagine. i would take much more what they say as being gospel rather than something the president is saying, in a much more political vain. as one of your previous guests said he's clearly looking inii revel in this. >> how the leader died a cower and giving all that detail, does that help us in the fight against isis, does it hurt us in the fight against isis? how do those comments play? >> again, in the end, i'm not sure it affects the isis audience one way or another. this is an audience that isn't likely to be persuaded to back way from their ideology, to back away from what they're doing, trying to target americans, western nations. but it does, i think, put us in a less positive light with our partners in the region. again, the idea that we're

somehow bragging or talking boastfully about what is, in a sense, difficult, hard, dirty work. you know, targeting terrorists who are trying to kill us and eliminating them from the battlefield. it's not a simple business. and it shouldn't be talked about in trivial ways. >> what about all the detail that he revealed yesterday in that 47-minute presser? >> again i watched that presser and i was kind of wincing along the way ascertain key details came out. i don't think there was any one detail i would single out and say oh, wow, that is a breach of security. but, you know, our special operations community treats its tactics very protectively, as they should. they have another mission tomorrow and the next day and the year after that, and the week after that, and the month after that. so, anything you do that talks about how they do their business, whether it's how many aircraft were involved or how they were flying or where they were coming from, or how much time they spent on the compound. these are all details that don't need to be revealed.

certainly don't need to be revealed in a way that might give our adversaries some kind of insight or advantage. >> are we in a good position going forward to locate and eliminate our fight against terrorists, stop it from happening now that the president has -- the president has been doing this the past few years, been undermining our relationships with allies overseas. are we still in a good position to fight the war against terror today with the way the president has treated our allies? >> well, unfortunately, the effort to go after terrorists abroad and to prevent terrorists from succeeding at what they're trying to do requires us to be present and forward deployed around the world. that's obviously something that the president isn't comfortable with. he believes that we need to withdraw from these conflict zones, bring our forces home, end the so-called forever wars. as many analysts have point out, we were actually doing what we were doing in syria with a

pretty significant economy of force. we were not there with tens of thousands of troops. we were working with partners, as your question suggests and we were having impact. i'm worried if we flash forward six months and implement and execute the decisions the president has made with respect to syria going forward, i'm not sure we would be able to execute the kind of operation that was executed over the weekend. and that's not a place we want to be. >> nick rasmussen, thank you fo brexhaustion. brexhaustion r reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

wyou can see relationships.gy, without fingersticks. connections. patterns. you can see what others can't. ♪ make ice.d be mad at tech that's unnecessarily complicated. but you're not, because you have e*trade, which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad. get e*trade. i athere was a sports carre and a family saloon car and i always had in my mind that one day the family car could compete in rallies and racing when the mini actually came out i said this is the one to do it.

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. here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... 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.

it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! 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.

in case you missed it i have a serious quandary, a squandary, if you will. consider this from donald trusk. the eu has agreed that it will accept the uk's request for a brexit flextension. port man toe is a word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others. in this case, brexit is a combination of britain and exit and flextension is a blend of flexible and extension. i, for one, say britain you've overflextended yourself. where does it end with a brexit deadlock becoming a breadlock?

we're all brexhausted by all the word play. america, don't get any ideas either. a bernie endorsement is not a bendorsement. and how about putin mechlt ddling, is it a peddling or poodling. let's end our bromance with port man toes and just stick to being frenemies. speaking of frenemies, "the beat with ari melber" starts right now in philadelphia. >> i love it, thank you, katy. live on "the beat" in philadelphia, overlooking independence hall, the build where the declaration of independence was adopted and the constitution was signed. we begin now with breaking news. late today, speaker nancy pelosi announcing something that has not yet