the most shared moment from this horrible day was the horse being lead to safety reported to have then bolted and returned to the compound to get the other horses out. tonight power's out to over a million californians, some under a mandatory black out not affected by the fires. over 200 structures are now gone. it's apparent to everyone this is not sustainable. the westward expansion that brought americans to that beautiful state was all about the american dream in all the places where today was a nightmare. solutions will be difficult and expensive. they require commitment and consensus in a country that doesn't seem to do the big things anymore. it's also true that california has led the way for years on its own, something to think about as we thank you for joining us here tonight. good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york.

you almost never get footage of these things right as they're happening. even if get footage of these kinds of confrontations, it's often from some great distance or through some 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 varitae you are there footage. not only from an eye level footage. you could even hear the russians 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 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 as its territory and blaming ukraine for provoking the incident. >> that was a report from nbc correspondent bill neely right at the time that this happened. we also got publicly released at the time just a sort of amazing raw 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. [ speaking foreign language ] >> 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 ukrainian sailors were hurt in the attack, but they took them all prisoner. if you look at a map of where this happened it gives you a little bit of a sense of what motivated this. 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 kurch strait. 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 ukrainian. they took crimea for themselves. they decided that crimea was now 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, a bridge that connects russia to crimea, to this part of ukraine that russia is now claiming as its own. and upon doing so, putting a russian millionaire into the other parts of eastern ukraine outside of crimea, in so doing, russia apparently decided that not only were they taking parts of ukraine for themselves, right -- they were taking crimea. they were taking and occupying eastern ukraine. not only for they taking parts of ukrainian for themselves, but they were also taking the sea between the two countries. they basically decided they would now treat that as if that was russian waters. and so at roughly this time last year, there's these three ukrainian ships full of ukrainian sailors. they set from their journey in one ukrainian port to another

ukrainian port, traveling through ukrainian waters but russia swoops in, shoots at them, and takes them prisoner. this is kind of a crisis, right? for the first time since world war ii you had a country on the borders of europe using military force to seize another country's land. that was when russia took crimea from ukraine in 2014. here they are just this past year seeing how much further they could push it, not just taking ukraine's land but taking the sea as well in 2018. this is -- 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 a serious crisis. as i mentioned, this thing that happened in the sea of asov, it was about a year ago, late november last year. president trump was asked about the crisis the following day on 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 me 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 boats in their own waters in their own country doing their own thing. they too are part of the problem. we didn't like the old lady in the cross walk or the speeding

truck frankly. russia naturally was delighted with this answer. "washington post" interviewed a senior russian official, the deputy foreign minister to get his response to how president trump was addressing this crisis. russian deposit fee foreign minister interpreted the calls for both sides to ease tensions as a signal that even western officials believe that ukraine shares some of the blame. this is acknowledgment through their teeth that the ukrainian yan side is also at fault even from their point of view. so, the attack happens on a sunday. most leaders in the western world freak out. the following day on monday, president trump does not freak out and says oh, i'm concerned about both sides. russian's delighted. within just a few days from then, though, trump was due to travel -- later that same day on thursday of that week he was due to tral to the g20 conference. at that conference there was an announced plan for president

trump to have a bilateral head to head meeting with russian president vladimir putin. obviously under these circumstances where russian forces have just opened fire on a u.s. ally, wounded sailors, seized three ships by force and taken 24 sailors prisoner, obviously the russian president cannot have a friendly meeting with the u.s. president. not just days after this attack on one of our allies, right? your meeting with president putin is off, right? that's not happening anymore, is it? >> i think it's a very good time to have the meeting. >> oh, of course. why not have the meeting? what can possibly get in the way of you having another opportunity to stare into those steely blue marbles. ultimately however good a time president trump thought that was going to be, that was an answer that even the trump white house could not acknowledge could not

stand. within less than an hour of the president saying what i just showed you, less than an hour after the president said it would be a great time to meet with vladimir putin, less than an hour later, the white house announced that in fact maybe it wouldn't be a good time. president trump would be cancelling his meeting with vladimir. they would not be meeting at the g20. it's interesting though. it's almost like russia knew they were more in control of the situation than the white house might be because russia never expressed concern in response to the announcement. they never seemed concerned that meeting might be off. in fact russia subsequently bragged that as far as they were concerned the meeting was on. this meeting is being prepared. in other words, oh, did the white house tell you the meeting is 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? hah. and sure enough, the day after the white house officially

announced that that meeting would not happen, that it was cancelled, after which russia asserted oh yes that meeting is still on, it'll still happen, the following day russia formally announced that the meeting between trump and putin at the g20 was on. when donald trump went to the g20 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 he did. good boy. 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 20 # 05. i have spent most of my career serving in countries on the periphery of the russian federation. for the last five years i've

worked in kyiv and washington to advance national security interests, countering russian aggression and defending the principles that international boarders 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 kurt volker asked me to serve as special adviser. in this role i helped negotiate, provided context on the history of the conflict and past negotiations. but on november 25th, 2018 -- november 25th last year, russia further escalated the conflict when its forces openly attacked and seized ukrainian military vessels heading to a ukrainian port in the see of asov. 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 rush'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, november 25th, 2018, 9:36 p.m. from kurt volker, the special representative for ukraine. it says, quote, russia rams ukrainian vessel peacefully traveling toward a ukrainian port. russia seizes ships and crew and then accuses ukraine of provocation question mark question mark question mark. those are very pregnant 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. 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 adviser to kurt volker when volker became trump's special on have a to ukraine. for the first time in the testimony today we learned that someone senior at the white house intervened to prevent the issuing of a statement that would condemn russia for what they did just last year, 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 ukrainian and calling it russia. we certainly do not recognize russia considering those international waters to be their own. but then they pull this off with one of our allies including taking all the sailors hostage and nothing? the white house intervenes to

stop a statement of condemnation? why did that happen? who -- 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 served in that top role on the ukraine issue as the top adviser otothe ukraine envoy until july of last year. he testified today in addition to the russian navy and the statement condemning it. he testified today that at white house meetings he heard national security adviser john bolton express concerns about rudy giuliani intervening in this part of u.s. foreign policy. and giuliani'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 succeeded him in july.

she testified today in the impeachment proceedings. among other things catherine croft confirmed according to her opening statement the details of a meeting that happened at the white house on july 18th soon after she took up this key post. in this july 18th meeting is one of the key moments that ambassador bill taylor testified about to the impeachment inquiry last week. bill taylor was the c change witness for the um impeachment proceeding so far. you might remember a dramatic moment from his testimony. he said, quote, in a regular security counsel secure video conference call i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget say there was a hold on security assistance to ukraine but could not say why. toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice of the call said she was from omb, the office of management and budget and her boss instructed her not to approve security assistance for ukraine until further

notice. taylor testified, quote, i and others sat in astonishment. 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 withhold the military aid had come from the president. so, that was bill tailor's very dramatic testimony. today he got back up. today catherine croft corroborated that directly and basically entirely. this was her testimony today. she said, quote, on july 18th, same date that tayloride identified, i participated in a video conference 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 extent that bill tailor's testimony last week that

president trump intervened to personally insist that military aid and white house meetings be denied to ukraine until they coughed up investigations that could help president trump and his domestic politics to the extent that bill tailor's testimony last week was the nail in the coffin or the first nail in the coffin for the impeachment proceedings, this today was direct corroboration that taylor was telling the truth and that there are other witnesses who will put their names to sworn statements where they back him up. 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 today, christopher anderson who testified about the white house blocking condemnation for russia for what russia did to the ukrainian ships and sailors a year ago, christopher anderson and croft who backed up taylor, both of those witnesses who testified today worked as i mentioned in succession as the

top adviser to kurt volker who was president trump's u.s. presidential enhave a to ukraine. you might remember his drama already. within hours of volker learning he had been called to testify, do you 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 also seen one of the top officials at the state department michael mic kinley also resign his position. he stepped down after three decades in the state department ahead of his own testimony to the impeachment proceedings. now today there is 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 council under john bolton. he was seen as a john bolton

guy, 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 council. npr was the first to report his resignation today. and i want to underscore today, according to the report, morrison is expected to leave his postimminently meaning he is 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 responsibility for europe and russia tonight resigning in advance of his testimony tomorrow morning. now, john bolton himself recently fired as donald trump's national security adviser -- it's always seemed interesting to me that he was ousted at the same time that president trump was forced to finally relent and let that ukrainian military aid

go through. that all happened around september 11, 12. john bolton himself is viewed as a wildcard in terms of what his testimony might amount to, what he would be willing to say, what 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 zelenski when people like the secretary of state were. the house has officially requested testimony at the impeachment proceedings from john bolton as of next week. we don't know whether or not bolton will appear. when he served as national security adviser, his number two, his deputy was charles cupperman. cupperman 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 that says he must appear. that will be before a judge

tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 eastern. kuperman was the deputy until september when they both left and were pushed out. john bolton shared a lawyer with mr. kupperman on these matters. maybe john bolton will try to predicate his own behavior and answer to the impeachment proceedings on the results of that legal action. we don't know. who knows. maybe john bolton will say yes i've been waiting to testify. can i bring my notes. the impeachment committees have scheduled bolton for his testimony next week. even though these impeachment proceedings are still at this point behind closed doors, the drama still increases every day. today the rules committee voted on the format and the procedures that the impeachment committees will use to move on to the next phase of their inquiry which will include public hearings. a full vote will take place in the house tomorrow and spoiler

alert, it will pass. meanwhile, while that is moving forward kwhy the house is movin toward the public hearings part of the hearings, members of the administration that have proximity are finding themselves getting asked about this stuff. any time they pop their heads above water even if it's not formally part of what's going on with the impeachment. today, for example, the number two official at the state department under 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 ambassador to russia after the hearing he went through today in senate foreign relations. but 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? there is no 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 investigations into a 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 nominee for russia of all places? i mean, do you? got lots to get to tonight. stay with us. 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 it's been a long time since andrew dusted off his dancing shoes. luckily denture breath will be the least of his worries.

because he uses polident 4 in 1 cleaning system to kill 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. polident. clean. fresh. and confident. of odor causing bacteria. that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

it 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 sham process quite frankly is coming out of the white house. what we know based on what this president has admitted, based on what his acting chief of staff has admitted, based on the testimony we know has come out of 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 to advance the official text of an impeachment resolution that will be voted on tomorrow by the full house of representatives. it's an eight-page resolution. it 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. she's vice chair of the rules committee. she took part in today's hearing. thanks so much 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 as a benchmark moment? >> it absolutely is a benchmark moment. we move to the procedures for how the house will have articles of impeachment. we've only done this 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 obviously have been attacking the process by which the impeachment proceedings have gone 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

toward public hearings, those are the rules you and your committee voted on today, i imagine that the line of attack from the republicans will not go away. it'll just 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, how you expect them to be conducted, 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 spreedings, and that's going to be part of our job is to widdle it down and get the best witnesses out there so that 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 supportive. we did a couple of impeachment 101 town halls a couple of weeks ago because people have questions about how this unfolds. 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. good to have you here. >> thank you. >> much more to get to tonight. stay with us. we'll be right back. 'll be righ. especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sis) where are we going?

(mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sis) whoa... (big sis) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. it made her feel proud. they saw us, they recognized us. ancestry® specifically showed the regions that my family was from. the state of jalisco. the city of guadalajara. the results were a reflection of our family and the results were really human. i feel proud about my identity. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.

...6, 7, 8 ♪ ♪ big dreams start with small steps... ...but dedication can get you there.

so just start small... start saving. easily set, track and control your goals right from the chase mobile® app. ♪ ♪ chase. make more of what's yours®. 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 ever 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 the lawrence van dyke 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 idea log, 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 who are 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. chairman, i ask to put that in the record. interviewees raised concerns you wouldn't be fair to the persons of the lgbtq community and interviewed 60 people across four states that you have 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 kind of 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 have ever seen. senator patrick leahy expressing disbelief at the warning flare after 60 people were asked about his integrity. and in the end even lawrence van dyke himself seemed undone by the questioning and ultimately by its intensity. >> did you say you wouldn't be fair to members of the lgbtq community? >> senator i -- that was -- that was 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. we'll let you know what happens with his nomination, but i'll tell you today was a very dramatic day in congress. that was not the most dramatic moment. that's still ahead. stay with us. that's still ahead stay with us

as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. ♪ we♪ because it's made withan, plants.♪ ♪ we switched to tide purclean,♪ ♪ it gets stains out of his pants.♪ ♪ tide purclean, they don't put phosphates in. ♪ ♪ no dyes or chlorine ♪ it's gentle on my skin. ♪tide purclean, it has nothing to hide. ♪ ♪ it's made with plants and ♪ has the cleaning ♪ strength of tide. the first plant-based detergent with the cleaning power of tide. brown-bagging it. so why you paying so much for wireless? i don't know... the new tracfone wireless gives you all kinds of control. leftovers? tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. what are you doing? unlimited carryover data! hey! do you know you can get unlimited talk and text

on america's best 4g lte networks for $20, no contract? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. the new tracfone wireless. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

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 stuff, 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 recent policy adventure when they tried to force critically ill kids to discontinue the 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 sicks kids like that announcing the end of a policy called medically deferred action. 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 over what they were trying to do eventually led the trump administration to announce that 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 approved. 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, despite his honesty on that point, he also just lied about a bunch of things having to do with that pollty. 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 that 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 that 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 nicu. 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 example. >> which is? >> we do not look at particular cases when making processes. >> 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. >> we have law. 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 continues to exist elsewhere. >> how cruel. 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. 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, 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. ♪

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 unannounced chaung in

policy that led to critically ill kids and their families being told to discontinue life saving 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, resume considering pleas from these families 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 one of the leading voices on this, he's 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 that weren't true, for instance all of these people were here illegally. in isabelle's case who you've reported on and thank you for doing that, we know she was here legally the entire time. >> that's true for/at love these kids. they're not here illegally. they applied to stay under this medical compassionate deferal. 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 that 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 pauper but its manifestation 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 you intend to continue oversight on this? >> i did 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 if he would work with the committee and with me to make sure we have a process and communicating with one another because there was a consensus from him 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. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, little things can be a big deal.

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. ♪ you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand

the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today. zblfrmgts warned you this week was going to be like this. we'll 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. question for raja krishnamoorthi. 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 by someone who served as a juror in the impeachment trial of the president of the united states. former democratic senator russ