president wants to walk around, all the rules normally in place for federal vacancies, but i'll tell you from people i speak to it's already been chaotic. they have policies enacted through a tweet before they actually get a memo how to implement it, and courts are holding things up. every day they have to figure out how they're going to carry out these policies. not having someone either confirmed or even an in acting position is hard for them. >> thank you both. that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> good evening, my friend. much appreciated. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. you almost never get footage of these things right as they're happening. even if get footage of these confrontations, it's often from some great distance or through some, you know, grainy surveillance interface, and you kind of need a narrator to figure out what's going on, in

this case we got something very rare. we got up close like cinema v i varitae you are there footage. you could even hear like the russian swearing in the background. >> russia's navy chasing three ukrainian ships. this video appearing to show the moment of impact. one ship rammed, shots were fired. the ship seized. two dozen ukrainian's sailors captured russian war planes threatening above. the ukrainian ships were hit at the narrow strait between russia and crimea which it illegally annexed. russia now claiming these waters it its territory and blaming ukraine for provoking the incident. >> that was a report from nbc correspondent bill neely right at the time this happened. we also got publicly released at

the time, just a sort of an amazing video from what i think appears to be maybe the bridge of one of the russian ships that was involved. it was a video that was shot as this thing was happening. >> this happened just a little less than a year ago, sunday november, 25, last year, 2018. what happened here is that a russian ship rammed into a ukrainian tug, then the russians opened fire on that tug that they just rammed, and they opened fire on two other ukrainian ships. the russians then sent commandos

onboard the ukrainian ships they had just rammed and shot at, and they took the crew members off those ships. they took two dozen ukrainian sailors as their prisoners. some of the ukrainians were hurt but they took them as prisoners. you saw bill neely spell this out the night it happened. on this map it's pretty obvious. on the right side of your screen that's the western part of russia. left part that's the south eastern part of ukraine. at the bottom of your screen below the other part of ukraine, that's called crimea, you can see the black sea there. but in between russia and the part of ukraine that is called crimea, you can see there's this tiny narrow little strait, which is called the kirgs strait, and north of there is a different

body of water, that's the northern extension of the black sea. and once upon a time the sea of asof was a relatively normal thing, but 5 1/2 years ago russia invaded ukraine. and they took a whole big chunk of the nation of ukraine. they took crimea for themselves. they decided crimea was now a part of russia. and after they did that, after they took crimea to sort of solidify their hold on ukraine, russia built a big weird expensive bridge across the strait, and upon doing so, upon seizing crimea for itself and building this bridge between russia and crimea and putting the russian military into the other parts of eastern ukraine outside of crimea, in so doing

russia apparently decided not only were they taking parts of ukraine for themselves, right, they were taking crimea, they were invading and occupying eastern ukraine. not only were they taking those parts of ukraine's territory for themselves, but they were also taking the sea between the two countries. they were also taking the sea of asof. they basically decided they would treat that as russian waters. this time last year there's these three ukrainian ships full of ukrainian soliers, they setoff on their journey and they're going through ukrainian waters to get there on their journey, but russia swoops in, shoots at them, boards their vessels, seizes their vessels and takes all these guys pr prisoner. rush pot all these sailors in a prison in moscow. that's where they brought these

ukraini ukrainian sailors they shot at and injured. they only let these guys out of prison this past month in a prisoner exchange. for the first time since world war ii you had a country on the borders of europe, right, using military force to seize another country's land. that was when russia took crimea from ukraine in 2014. then here they were less than a year ago seeing how much further they could push it, not just taking ukraine's land but taking the sea as well in 2018. this is really bad from the perspective of international relations, international law, the basic principles of modern interactions among civilized states. this is very bad russian behavior here. this is serious crisis. now as i mentioned this thing that happened in the sea of asof, it was a about year ago on

a sunday in november last year. president trump was asked about the crisis the following day, the following monday. he did not seem that concerned about it. >> we do not like what's happening. either way we don't like what's happening. >> yeah, either way. either way. i mean, what, you're asking about what russia did in shooting up those boats and taking all those sailors hostage from our ally, but we didn't like those sailors being there anyway in their own waters, in their own boats, they too were part of the problem. yeah, we didn't like either side of this. we didn't like either the old lady in the crosswalk or the speeding truck, frankly. russia was delighted with this answer. "the washington post" interviewed a deputy foreign minister to get his response to how president trump was addressing this crisis. quote, russian deputy foreign minister interpreted the calls for both sides to ease tensions as a signal even western

officials believed that ukraine shares some of the blame. quote, this is the sort of acknowledgement through their teeth that the ukrainian side is also at fault even from their point of view, grushko said. the attack happens on a sundays, most of the leaders in the western world freaks out. on the following monday president trump does not freak out and says i'm concerned about both sides. russia's delighted. within just a few days trump was due to travel, later on that same week, thursday of that week he was due to travel to the g-20 conference. there was already an announced plan for president trump to have a bilateral head to head meeting with russian president vladimir putin. now, obviously under these circumstances where russian forces have just opened fire on a u.s. ally, wounded some of their sailors, seized three of share ships by force and taken those sailors prisoner, the russian president who just did these things cannot then have a

friendly meeting with the u.s. president. not just days after this attack on one of our allies, right? you're meeting with president putin is off, sir, right? that's not happening anymore, is it? >> i think it's a very good time to have the meeting. >> of course. why not have the meeting? what could possibly get in the way of you having yet another opportunity to stare into those steely blue marbles? now, ultimately, however good a time president trump thought that was going to be, that was was an answer even the trump white house had to acknowledge could not stand. within less than an hour after the president saying what i just showed you, less than an hour after president trump said he thought it would be a great time to meet with vladimir putin, less than an hour later the white house announced in fact maybe it wouldn't be a great time. president trump would be canceling his meeting with vladimir, they'd not be meeting together at the g-20.

it's interesting, though, it's almost like russia knew they were more in control of the situation than the white house maybe because russia never expressed any concern in response to that white house announcement. they never seemed concerned at all that meeting might actually be off. in fact russia subsequently bragged as far as they were concerned the meeting was still on. telling reporters, quote, this meeting is being prepared. in other words, did the white house tell you the meeting was off? that's adorable. if we say putin is going to meet with trump, then putin is going to meet with trump. you're going to listen to those people? and sure enough the day after the white house officially announced that meeting would not happen, that it was canceled after which russia kind of c asserted yes it would happen, the following day russia formally announced the meeting between trump and putin at the g-20 was still on. and in fact when donald trump went to the g-20 meeting he did in fact meet with vladimir putin

just like russia said he would. sure, the white house said he wouldn't take that meeting but russia said he would. and now as of today, as of this afternoon, now we actually know more of the real story about what really happened there. more of what happened behind the scenes. and here's how we know it. quote, mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement today. i've served as a foreign service officer in the state department since 2005. i've spent most of my career serving in countries on the periphery of the russian federation including mongolia, armenia and most recently ukraine. for the last five years i've worked in kiev and washington by promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern ukraine, countering russian aggression and defending the principles that international borders should not be changed by force. it has been a privilege to serve our country and promote our national interests on such an

important foreign policy issue. these efforts have benefitted from strong bipartisan support. in august 2017 ambassador kirk volker asked me to serve as special advisor for ukraine negotiations. in this role i helped negotiate, provided context on the history of the conflict and past negotiations. on november 25, 2018, russia further escalated the conflict when its forces openly attacked and seized ukrainian military vessels heading to a ukrainian port in to sea. while my colleagues quickly prepared a statement senior officials in the white house blocked that statement from being issued. ambassador volker drafted a tweet condemning russia's actions which i posted to his account. if you want to see the power of that tweet, i think we were able to figure out what it is today. we think it's this.

you see the date on that, from kirk volker, the special representative from ukraine. says, quote, russia rams ukrainian vessel peacefully traveling towards a ukrainian port. russia seizes ships and crew and then accuses ukraine of provocation, question mark, question mark, question mark. those are very poignant question marks. if you think the power of the u.s. government is not behind those three question marks, russia seizes ships and crew and then accuses ukraine of provocation, question, question, question. if you think the u.s. government's power is not represented by those question marks, let me refer you to the white house statement on this matter. there isn't one, sorry. there never was one. this testimony today is from christopher anderson, long time foreign service officer who was brought in to be the top advisor to kirk volker when trump became his special envoy to ukraine.

for the first time we learned that someone senior at the white house interveerched to prevent the issuing of a statement that would condemn russia for what they did. just last year, a actually less than a year ago when they rammed into and shot at those ukrainian ships and took all those sailors hostage. that's our ally, right? we supposedly do not recognize russia taking part of ukraine and calling it russia. we certainly do not recognize russia considering those international waters or ukrainian territorial waters to be their own, but then they pull this off with one of our alallies including taking those sailors hostage and nothing. the white house intervenes to stop a statement of condemnation. why did that happen? which senior official at the white house did that? we didn't know about that before today. but it's amazing all the stuff that's turning up in this impeachment inquiry. christopher anderson serve in that top role on the ukraine

issue as the top advisor to the ukraine envoy until july of this year. he testified today in addition to that incident involving the russian navy and the kiboshing of a statement condemning it, he also testified today at white house meetings he heard national security advisor john bolton express concerns about rudy giuliani intervening in this part of u.s. foreign policy. and you'll yawny's calls for ukraine to perform some sort of investigations that might benefit president trump. christopher anderson was succeeded in his job after he left this summer by catherine croft, she's another foreign service officer. she squeeded this summer in july. he also testified today in the impeachment proceedings. among other things catherine croft confirmed the details of a meeting that happened july 18th, soon after she took up this key post. and this july 18th meeting is one of the key moments ambassador bill taylor testified about to impeachment inquiry

last week. bill taylor was sort of the seat change witness for the proceedings going on so far. and you might remember one dramatic moment. he said, quote, in a regular national security counsel a secure counsel call july 18th there was a hole on security assistance to ukraine but could not say why. towards the end of an otherwise normal meeting a voice on the call, a person offscreen said she was from omb, the office of budget and management and her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for ukraine until further notice. i and others sat in aastonishment, the ukrainians were fighting the russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of u.s. support. all that the omb staff person said was that this directive to hold the military aid had come

from the president. that was bill taylor's very dramatic testimony. today he got backup. today catherine croft corroborated that directly and basically entirely. this was her testimony today. she said, quote, on july 18th, the same date that taylor identified, july 18th i participated in a sub'policy coordination committee videoconference where an omb representative reported that the white house chief of staff had placed an informal hold on security assistance to ukraine. the only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president. so to the extent that bill taylor's testimony last week, that president trump intervened to personally insist military aid and white house meetings be denied to ukraine i will they coughed up investigations that could help president trump and his domestic politics, to the extent of bill taylor's testimony last week was the nail in the coffin or the ninety-first nail in the coffin for these impeachment

proceedings, this today was direct corroboration that taylor was telling the truth and there are other witnesses to put nar names to sworn statements. and i will say the drama here is just kind of beginning. for one thing taylor says that he is willing to testify in a public hearing if the congressional impeachment committees want him to. i'll tell you also that both of these people who testified to, christopher anderson who testified about the white house blocking condemnation for russia for what russia did to those ukrainian ships and sailors a year ago, who backed up taylor on one of his most alarming claims, both of those witnesses who testified today worked as i mentioned in succession as top advisor to kirk volker who was president trump's u.s. presidential envoy to ukraine. you might remember some of the drama about volker arld. within hours of volker returning he himself had been called to testify before the impeachment proceedings, remember what volker did? he quit.

he quit his job on a friday apparently to free him up in some way so he could testify to the impeachment proceedings early the following week. since then we've seen one of the top officials at the state department michael mckinically also resign his position at the trump administration. he stepped down after more than three decades in the state department ahead of his own testimony to the impeachment proceedings. well, now today there's another senior trump administration official stepping down before testifying to the impeachment proceedings. this time it's tim morrison, a senior official on the national security counsel under john bolton. he was seen as a john bolton guy. he's been known throughout his career as a hard core hard core hard core national security conservative and in particular a real hawk on nuclear issues. he served until today as the senior director for europe and russia at the national security counsel. npr was the first to report his resignation today. and i do want to underscore today per npr's report, quote,

morrison is expected to leave his post imminently. meaning he's gone, which is important because his scheduled testimony for the impeachment proceedings is tomorrow morning. so tim morrison, a senior director at the national security council with spaubt for europe and russia tonight resigning in advance of his testimony tomorrow morning. now, john bolton himself recently fired donald trump's national security advisor. it's always seemed interesting to me that bolton was ousted as national security advisor basically the same time donald trump was forced to relent and let that military aid finally go through. that all happened september 11th, september 12th. john bolton himself i think is viewed as a wild card, what he would be willing to say, what indeed he was part of. there are mysteries about john bolton's behavior including why he wasn't on the call between

president trump and president zelensky when people like the secretary of state were. well, the house today has officially requested testimony of the impeachment proceedings of president trump from john bolton as of next week. we don't know whether or not bolton will appear. when he served as national security advisor his deputy was charles cupperman. cupperman was the one last week brought a lawsuit in response to his request to testify to the impeachment committees. cupperman asked a judge to intervene, to tell him whether or not he should obey the white house instruction not to appear or the congressional subpoena that says he must appear. that case is due to get its first hearing before a federal judge tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 p.m. eastern. again, charles cupperman was john bolton's deputy until september when they both left, slash were pushed out. john bolton i believe also shares a lawyer with mr. cupperman on these lawyers. that suggests that whatever happens on this court case that cupperman has ins tugrated maybe

john bolton will try to predicate his own behavior and answer on the impeachment proceedings on the results of that legal action. maybe john bolton will say, yes, i've been waiting to testify. bolton has been scheduled for his testimony next week even though those impeachment proceedings are at this point behind closed doors, the drama still increases every day. today the rules committee voted on the format and procedures that the impeachment committees will use to move onto the next phase of their inquiry which will include public hearings. a full vote on those rules will take place in the house tomorrow, and spoiler alert, it will pass. meanwhile while that is moving forward, while the house is moving toward the public hearings part of their impeachment proceedings, members of the administration who have any proximity to these events that are the basis for the impeachment are increasingly finding themselves getting asked

about this stuff. any time they pop their heads above water, even if it's not formally part of the impeachment. mike pompeo had his confirmation hearing to become trump's new ambassador to russia. john sullivan may or may not continue being president trump's nominee for his ambassador to russia after the hearing john sullivan went through today in senate foreign relations. all of these officials, you know, you were in the middle of this. what are you going to get -- what are you going to do when you get asked questions like this? honestly, there is probably no better honest way to answer a question like this no matter how much john sullivan might have preferred not to be asked it. >> do you think it's ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit investigations into a domestic political opponent? >> soliciting investigation into a domestic political opponent, i don't think that would be in accord with our values.

>> once you have to admit that under oath on the record because of course you have to admit that, do you still get to work in the donald trump administration? do you still get to be his ambassador nomfry for russia of all places? do you? lots to get to tonight. stay with us. you lots to get to tonight stay with us because allergies... shouldn't get in the way of a good time. because a heart attack... should never stop the heart of a family.

because hemophilia... shouldn't keep someone from doing what's in their blood. at bayer, everything we do... from advances in health to innovations in agriculture... is to help every life we touch. at bayer, this is why we science.

hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

it is a little frustrating they kind of hear all complaints about process which by the way i think it's a good process. the real cham process quite frankly is coming out of the white house. what we know based on what this president has been admitted, based on what his acting chief of staff has admitted, based on what we know that has inunder the intelligence committee, i mean this is serious stuff. and so we can -- some can continue to circle the wagons around the white house and make believe there's nothing there, but i don't know by any measure how people cannot be shocked by

what's going on. >> that's the chair of the house rules committee, congressman jim mcgovern speaking tonight shortly before his committee voted on an impeachment tax resolution that will be voted on tomorrow by the full house of representatives. it's an eight page resolution, calls for public hearings and authorizes the intelligence committee to publicly release transcripts of depositions taken for witnesses thus far. it also says the intelligence committee has to compile a final report on its findings from this inquiry, a report which will be released to the public. joining us now is pennsylvania congresswoman mary gay scanlen. thank you for your time tonight. it's good to have you here. >> thank you. >> obviously tomorrow's house vote on the floor is not a vote

whether or not the president should be impeached, but it's going to be historic moment. this is the full house going on the record regarding these impeachment proceedings and how they should be carried out. how significant do you think this moment is? should the american people be looking at this as a touchstone or bench mark moment? >> we've only done this what three times previously in our history so it's a very significant moment. other members of the rules committee and i were saying it kind of gives you shivers when you have to vote on something like that. it's serious. >> republicans have recently been attacking the process by which the impeachment proceedings have gone forward thus far. they've been saying in particular they really want public hearings and they don't recognize the legitimacy of this inquiry because the depositions thus far have been behind closed doors.

now there is going to be a move behind public hearings, i imagine that the line of attack from the republicans will not go away, that it will not switch to a new avenue. is that what you're expecting? >> it always does. when you don't have the facts and you don't have the law you go after the process. yes, we've been hearing process complaints. the process we're hoping to have approved tomorrow or expecting to have approved tomorrow is basically going to be the same process as was used in the nixon and the clinton impeachment hearings. what has happened up until now has been an investigation. now we move to the point where the house itself will be considering whether or not to move towards articles of impeachment. there's different phases here and this is just setting up us up for the next one. >> there have been a lot of of us -- i think a lot of us watching from the outside have been gaming out what these public hearings might be like. there's been a report today that the top diplomat, u.s. diplomat

in ukraine bill taylor is willing to testify publicly if he's called to do so. his testimony behind closed doors, what we know of it because of his opening statement released publicly, appears to be a key perspective on this matter. what can you tell us of what you expect, when we should expect public hearings, whether the public is going to be able to follow along at home with the narrative that's been explored thus far. >> that's going to be the challenge for judiciary and leadership in the house is to put together a narrative people can understand. unfortunately, we have an embarrassment of material that could be used in these proceedings and that's going to be part of our job is to whistle it down and get the best witnesses out there so people understand just what the real threat is here. i mean, we've had abuse of power, betrayal of the country,

potential corruption in our elections, and we need to get the truth out there, so the american people can understand and decide where we go from here. >> when you go home to your district in pennsylvania and talk to your constituents about this, what are they telling you? are they generally supportive, are people giving you a hard time about it? >> generally supportb. we did a couple of town halls about a week ago. while people have been generally supportive that's where the constitution was written. people are pretty up on it, but, you know, there are definitely some people who are less supportive. >> congresswoman mary gay scanlon of pennsylvania, thank you for your time tonight. much more to get to tonight. stay with us. we'll be right back. get to ton. stay with us we'll be right back. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) performance comes in lots of flavors.

there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!?

they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. a man named lawrence vandyke has been nominated by the trump administration to serve in the ninth circuit court of appeals. now ordinarily nominees for federal judgeships are vetted to a certain degree by the american bar association, the aba. and you can rate aba ratings for judicial nominees however you want. but in mr. vandyke's case the assessment of his fitness to be a judge is like none i have never seen or heard of. the aba in his case did

interviews with 60 lawyers and judges that mr. vandyke has crossed paths with professionally across four different states. not only did the aba conclude that lawrence vandyke is not, qualified to be a federal judge, but they made this extraordinary case that it was the assessment of these 60 interviewees they spoke to that mr. vandyke is and i quote, arrogant, lazy, an idelog and lacking in the day to day knowledge and procedural rules. quote, there was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful. arrogant and lazy. this is not a normal aba rating for a normal judicial candidate. according to the aba those 60 people they spoke to across four different states also raised a specific concern about whether mr. vandyke could be, quote,

fair to persons gay, lesbian or otherwise part of the lgbtq community. quote, mr. vandyke would not say he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the lgbtq community. and with that ringing endorsement today lawrence vandyke went before the judiciary committee and senate for his confirmation hearing. and you can bet that warning letter, that almost bizarre intense wording from the aba about this candidate, you can bet that that came up. >> you're rated not qualified by a majority of the aba, the most alarming aba ratings i've ever seen. interviewees raised concerns you wouldn't be fair to the persons of the lgbtq community and interviewed 60 people across four states you've worked in and they based it on interviewing 60

people across four states. interviewed one or two people i might ignore it, but 60 across four states, that's -- i've been here for about 45 years. i don't recall quite that of an in-depth interview on these kind of -- these kind of ratings. >> i've been here for 45 years. this is one of it most alarming aba ratings i've ever seen. senator patrick leahy expressing disbelief at the warning flare after 60 people were asked about his integritiy and in the end h seemed undone by the questioning. >> did you say you wouldn't be fair to members of the lgbtq community? >> senator, that was the part of the letter -- i did not say

that. i apologize. >> that's all right. >> i'm sorry. no, i did not say that. >> the confirmation hearing for lawrence vandyke today in the senate judiciary committee took that very dramatic turn. today was a very dramatic day in congress. that was not the most dramatic moment. that still ahead. stay with us. atic moment that still ahead stay with us no signal goes farther or is more reliable.

so you can get more out of the new iphone. better battery life, new ultra-wide camera. and at t-mobile get unlimited for only $30/line for 4 lines on a network that goes farther than ever before. and right now, switch at a t-mobile store and get the new iphone 11 on us! only at t-mobile.

but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast...

...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? what do you expect them to

do? you want them to leave the country, pack up their stuff, take their sick child and go? >> either that or make their case in the immigration process where it's appropriate to do so. >> pack up their staff, take their sick kid and go? yeah, yeah either that or they could, you know, try to work something out. that's pretty much what we had in mind they would grab their sick kid and get out. trump administration today not exactly tiptoeing around their foreign policy when they tried to get ill kids to discontinue their medical care that was saving their lives in this country so the trump administration could force them and their families out of the country. in august the trump administration sent letters to families of sick kids like that. the trump administration telling those families they had 33 days to pack up their backing and get out of this country even if that would result in death because the medical care keeping those

kids alive was only available in this country. well, the resulting backlash to that policy change and the general revulsion of what they were trying to do eventually led the trump administration announce they would reverse course on that. but since that announced reversal the administration has basically gone quiet on the matter. and quietly the vast majority of critically ill kids who rely on this policy to stay in this country and receive treatment that's saving their lives, they and their families haven't heard a peep about their cases. they've been given no indication as to whether their requests to stay have been approve. you can imagine the daily hourly anxiety that goes along with that since the decision by the u.s. government whether or not those kids can stay here is the decision as to whether or not those kids die or not. today we finally got some answers. today we learned who is the person who directed that change in policy. the person who oversaw that change in policy, the person who's now taking responsibility

for it is the acting director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, ken cuccinelli. and he was on capitol hill to answer questions today. and to be honest for as frank as he was in admitting that the administration really did want parents to pack up their sick kids and take them out of the country, for all his honesty on that point, yeah, they need to get out even if staying here is keeping them alive, he also just lied about a bunch of things having to do with the policy. he for example claimed the families were never threatened with being forced out of the country despite the fact all these families got letters telling them to get out of the country within 33 days. and there was also a stunning exchange in which mr. cuccinelli admitted while he instituted this change, while he's the one that put it into place he never bothered to learn about the cases of the severely ill kids he was potentially going to kill by making this policy shift.

>> pediatricians in indiana reported that parents of at least two infants in neo natal intensive care unit received letters from uscis telling them to leave the country within 33 days. imagine that, you have just had a child that is so sick she is in icu. at the moment your child's health should be the only thing you have to worry about. the u.s. government orders you to pack up and leave the country. mr. cuccinelli, did you know about these cases before you uscis decided to end deferred action? >> my answer is the same as the earlier. >> which is? >> we do not look at particular cases when making -- >> so you don't care? >> no, you asked me did i know. you bet i care. >> do you care that somebody's

in -- >> you bet i do. and it would be great -- >> in an intensive care unit about to die. >> if you cared enough to pass a law we'd enforce it. >> let me ask you this, what would you recommend those parents do when they receive that letter? >> well, what we expected most of them to do was very little, candidly. we send a lot of those letters out and not in circumstances -- >> what do you expect them to do? you want them to leave the country, pack up their stuff, take their sick child and go? >> either that or make their case in the immigration process where it's appropriate to do so. >> all in the middle of them being there trying to hoping and praying that they save their child's life -- >> which is why deferred action tines to -- >> how cruel. really? really? i don't believe this.

i yield back. >> that is congressman william clay, democrat of missouri. now there's more. today there was this hearing where ken cuccinelli gave that performance and elicited that reaction from members of congress who know what they were talking about and asked him about it. now we've got some of the paper trail how this whole disaster came to be and what happened here. and that story is next. stay with us. here and that story is next stay with us owders, try the cooling, soothing relief or preparation h, because your derriere deserves expert care. preparation h. get comfortable with it.

with your dna results from ancestry®. i was able to discover one cousin, reached out to him, visited ireland, met another 20 cousins. they took me to the cliffs of moher, the ancestral home, the family bar. it really gives you a sense of connection to... something that's bigger than yourself. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.

ken cuccinelli the acting director of u.s. citizenship and

immigration services told congress today he's the one, he's the one responsible for the abrupt announced change in policy that led to critically ill kids and their families being told to discontinue lifesaving medical care and get out of the u.s. within 33 days. after a national uproar in response to that policy change the administration reversed course. now as part of a new legal filing we can see how that happened. this letter sent from the secretary of homeland security kevin mcaleenan september 18th to ken cuccinelli ordering him to resume the old policy to stay in the u.s. for the sake of their kids who need to stay here in order to stay alive. we all know secretary mcaleenan has seen resigned. his last day is expected to be tomorrow. we also know that ken cuccinelli is one of the people who the white house reportedly wants to replace him. what's to stop this policy from getting up ended again once

mcaleenan is out the door? joining us is also a member of the rules committee that voted tonight to advance the impeachment inquiry. thank you for your time. >> thanks for inviting me. >> let me ask you about this hearing today. were their surprises in what i'm sure was a surprise in term of the tone in defending this policy? >> there's not much left for surprise from this administration. i guess what i was surprised by was some of the things he asserted when weren't true which for instance all of these people were here illegally. in isabel's case we know she was here legally for a long time. >> this is a long-standing policy. they're not here illegally. they're here legally. they applied to stay essentially under this medical compassionate deferral. we've been worried about the fact the administration reversed this on paper, but all these

families and kids still don't know about the way their case is going to be resolved. do you have any further clarity on that? >> no, and i brought this up in the hearing, they're in limbo. they don't know what's happening in the case of isabel, they were approved four times and they accepted the precedent including this administration, and then all of a sudden they get this letter. so we have to be on guard all the time. >> in terms of what happens next while these people are still in limbo, while the policy is changed on paper but its man fes station in the real world remains to be seen, are you concerned now we know that secretary mcaleenan ordered the reversal of this policy, now that he's leaving, we don't know who's going to be taking his place, are you concerned that the administration might once again just go for it full force? >> yeah, i'm very concerned because whoever takes responsibility for the actual action in my mind it's clear who's ultimately responsible by his tone, and that's the president of the united states.

and also because he's not interested in finding out that he may be hurting people. so whether he's a sociopath or just lazy, we have to be on guard all the time. >> in terms of how to move forward on this, do you expect further hearings? how do expect to continue oversight on this? >> i dead get in my interplay with the acting secretary he would work with us because he kept asserting it was congress' fault, they were just complying with the law which is not factual from a historic perspective. i asked him we would have a process and communicating with one another because there was consensus from him tloos from what i took he wanted to take care of these cases but he wanted to work with congress. >> thank you for your time tonight. thanks for your attention to this. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. this >> thank you >> we'll be right back must be hot out there, huh? not especially. -[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking?

gasoline. right, but i mean, what's in the cup? gasoline. [ slurping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. for those who were born to ride, little things can be a big deal. to severe psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla.

show more of you. ♪ performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ we're going to have another busy day tomorrow. i want to repeat one of our top

stories from tonight. a senior trump administration national security official, an official named tim morrison suddenly resigned his position at the white house tonight. and that would be news in its own right just like that, but it's a particularly intriguing piece of news given that tomorrow morning that same official tim morrison is due to give testimony behind closed doors in the impeachment proceedings against the president. i don't know if we're going to get an opening statement or any other read out from morrison's deposition tomorrow, but watch this space. and that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. you've just framed my first question for a member of the committee that will be hearing these depositions tomorrow. we'll see if mr. morrison shows up. >> that's one way to sort of curtain raise on your testimony, resign the day before you do it. >> thank you, rachel. we'll be joined tonight b