we always run out of time. we're out of time now but i have time to thank matt miller, tim o'brien, most of all, thank you for watching. that does it for this hour. "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. right now, we are waiting for a federal judge to rule whether president trump's former white house counsel don mcgahn will have to testify in the house impeachment investigation. that ruling could have implications for other white house officials who are resisting testifying in the impeachment inquiry. but we begin tonight with breaking news. new reporting from moments ago indicating that the criminal

investigation surrounding rudy giuliani and his associates may be significantly broader than previously known. in just the last hour, both the wall street journal and "the washington post" are reporting that federal prosecutors are exploring a wide range of potential crimes, including money laundering, obstruction of justice, wire fraud, and failure to register as a foreign agent as part of its investigation. both outlets cite people familiar with the investigation. the post reports that investigators are scrutinizing giuliani's consulting business and eyeing donations made to a pro-trump super pac. this comes as one of giuliani's indicted associates is signaling he is eager to cooperate with the house's impeachment investigation. this news also comes as house intelligence chairman adam schiff now says his committee will be sending its findings over to the judiciary committee soon after the thanksgiving break. so, potentially, as early as next week.

but schiff also left the door open for further investigations saying the intelligence committee is prepared should anyone else come forward. but democrats have made it clear they believe they have the evidence to prove beyond dispute that president trump pressured ukraine to investigate his political rivals ahead of the 2020 election, which was based, in part, on a russian conspiracy theory that ukraine, not russia, attacked our democracy in the 2016 election. but there may be no amount of evidence that will sway republicans because we're now seeing the president's allies brazenly embracing that russian conspiracy and launching their own investigations into the president's political rivals. let's kick things off tonight with the latest. msnbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill. garrett, this rudy giuliani news. is that -- is that being talked about over there in the halls? i know they're on recess but are you hearing anybody bringing this up? >> yeah, katy, this is all breaking pretty quick so we're not hearing much from lawmakers on this yet.

most of whom are home in their districts but this will not come as a surprise i can't imagine. perhaps the scope of it will but it don't come as a surprise to anyone who followed the impeachment hearings from last week. giuliani's name came up again and again and again on really a six-month timeline in -- on his ukraine activities alone. and while democrats were not investigating rudy giuliani's role, they really wanted to get to the bottom of the president's role in this. the sheer volume of -- of times which giuliani was mentioned and in the various context really drew a pretty bright spotlight on him. we know two of his associates are already indicted for similar crimes related to essentially strongman donations. and there's always been questions about who was paying rudy giuliani for all the work that he was doing overseas. so the fact that giuliani may have -- be in a bit of hot water here will not surprise anyone who's been following his activities as relates to the impeachment inquiry. >> i just read adam schiff's letter to colleagues about the investigation and how they're handing it over to judiciary after thanksgiving.

i also noticed he said they are still investigating. what exactly are they still investigating? and will they be continuing that even after they send the report to judiciary? >> they will. schiff pointed out in that letter that they've not received a single document from a single executive branch agency despite the subpoenas that they've released. they're getting some help from outside groups who have filed freedom of information act requests. some of those are generating documents that were not turned over pursuant to subpoenas. schiff is trying to walk a little bit of a tight rope here. they want to keep this investigation moving quickly. they don't want to get bogged down waiting for court action that could take weeks or months. and is wholly unpredictable. but they want to leave the door open for more information to come their way if and when it does. if more -- if more witnesses come forward. there's nothing that stops the judiciary committee or indeed the full house from considering evidence that comes to light later, after this intel report is completed. the report is only a starting point for the judiciary committee and then ultimately

the house to work on articles of impeachment. they want to make it as strong of a starting point as possible but if they can continue to gather evidence, particularly in the form of the documents that they've requested from federal agencies, from giuliani's two indicted associates and others, that could buttress their case at any point down the line. >> and what about these allegations that devin nunes was in vienna trying to get information on the bidens from the former ukrainian prosecutor victor shokin? >> these will raise a lot of eyebrows. remember, nunes got uncomfortably close for some to the white house during the mueller investigation. he had to step back from house intel's russia probe for a while because of his coziness with the white house on this. you know, nunes has been as dogged a defender of president trump as anybody in the house. he does not talk to about 90% of reporters up here, including he's never answered a single question from me since i've been covering capitol hill. this is someone who has been very, very securely in the

president's corner. and the idea that he might be chasing, pursuing some of the same conspiracies, some of the same things the president is interested in is not surprising either. what he was intending to do with it and what, if anything, the full house will do with this investigation when they come back are i think two worth while questions to follow up on from somebody in nunes's world. >> you know, you're not alone. our colleague jacob soberoff tried to ask why we vote on tuesday and nunes referred him to his office. >> it happens with the best of us. >> even beyond the president. garrett haake, garrett thank you very much. for more, i am joined here in new york by msnbc political analyst and new york times political reporter nick. msnbc political analyst and former clinton campaign advisor zerlina maxwell. guys, there is so much happening today. we are still waiting on this ruling with don mcgahn. whether or not he's going to be compelled to testify. still, if that does happen, the white house is expected to

appeal that to the supreme court. the democrats say they don't want to play this waiting game and they got to move forward. that they got to do it now. is it a risk? >> well, it's an important test of the claim of immunity that the white house has been trying to exercise. and it's amazing that this case dates back to the mueller probe. still litigating which actually gives you a sense of why democrats aren't going to wait for it. this has been percolating for months and months. but i would say in today's news, the fact that someone has -- the tires of rudy giuliani's consulting business should be cause for great alarm for both him and the president. >> is he michael cohen in this scenario? >> i think so and i think he would be wise to look back at what happened to michael cohen when he is thinking about the things he's saying on television or twitter because when you are under this type of legal scrutiny, the worst thing you can do is talk a lot in public. and i think that he is seemingly very confident about his position. but i don't -- i don't know what that stems from. >> an insurance policy. >> i don't know what that means

and i think until we understand. until he, you know, shows us what it is, we're not going to know. he could just be throwing up smoke. but the bottom line is that the facts aren't going to change. what he did, the conduct he was engaged in, that -- those facts are not going to change. >> republicans will say the president is being targeted, targeted, targeted, targeted, targeted. ever since he got into office, target. all of his associates are being targeted. it is all unfair. is it all unfair? or are they just doing a lot of things wrong? >> well, that's like suggesting that the fbi keeps targeting criminal enterprises. i mean, the targets are there because -- because they've been provided by -- by this administration from the very beginning. and you can see it in the number of cabinet members who have been forced to resign for one reason or another. often, for ethical reasons. but also because of the very legitimate questions people have had from the beginning about the -- the -- this presidency. look, one case in point. we've had some reporting both from "the new york times" and wall street journal that were expecting an inspector general

report from the justice department on what is supposed to be the great conspiracy theory that -- that -- that the very basis of the investigation into the trump campaign's ties with russia was -- was dubious, was baseless from -- from the start. >> the durham investigation. >> right. no, horowitz. >> horowitz. sorry. >> horowitz investigation. and low and behold, what early reports are, actually the investigation was perfectly well-founds because there was such an amount of smoke coming out of that campaign that the fbi was well within its rights to start a counterintelligence probe. >> so tell me this. why have conspiracy theories just permeated the republican party? hold on. let's play senator kennedy over the weekend. senator kennedy. senator kennedy who went to oxford. this is senator kennedy. >> senator kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the dnc and clinton campaign computers, their

e-mails? was it russia? or ukraine? >> i don't know. nor do you. nor do any others. ms. hill -- >> let me just interrupt to say the entire intelligence community says it was russia. >> right. but it could also be ukraine. i'm not saying that i know one way or the other. i'm saying that ms. hill is entitled to her opinion. but no rebuttal evidence was allowed to be offered. >> that is a cup in front of me but it could also be a ladybug. >> right. it's like that painting, you know -- >> this is not a pipe. >> right. you know, that paul newman movie where that is the line what we have here is a failure of communication? what we have here is a failure of epistemology. like literally the very theory of knowledge on which we understand things -- >> we don't share facts any longer. >> we don't share facts. we don't even share a common sense of how one approximates the truth. and by the way, this is not a surprise because who is the most important conspiracy theorist in

the world today? it's the president of the united states. so why is it -- why is anyone surprised that -- that -- that republicans in the senate, including well-educated, thoughtful ones take up his queue? >> senior administration officials who work on things like this, disinformation, have told me that -- that this is insane. >> yeah. >> that this is insane. and what the republicans -- trump's administration -- what the republicans are doing is insane. >> i -- i have a segment on my radio show that's called oliver explains the right and we do it every week because literally i was being driven crazy by not being able to understand what is happening in right-wing media. because that's the reason why this is happening. that is not for us. when the republicans were asking questions at the impeachment hearing, it seemed like they were asking questions from a different investigation. everybody was like what are they talking about? who is alexander chalupa? but all of this makes sense because the audience in right-wing media and that's everything from rush limbaugh, all the way up to fox news, is conditioned and they understand who is characters are.

what the narratives are and what the sub texts of each segment they're watching is. and so they know what he's -- the reason why he can't say what the answer is, which is russia did it, is because 80%, 90% republicans support trump and he can't go against that. >> does this explain secretary perry saying this? watch. >> god used imperfect people all through history. king david wasn't perfect. solomon wasn't perfect. i know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one. and -- and i said you were. i said if you're a believing christian, you understand god's plan for the people who rule and -- and -- and -- and judge over us on -- on this planet in -- in our government. you were. you didn't get here without god's blessing. >> this is even more remarkable considering if you go back to

2016, donald trump insulted rick perry, called him a dummy. said he's only trying to look smart with those glasses. it's a man that gets insulted by the president, turning around a few years later and calling him the chosen one. >> certainly, a faith statement on the part of secretary perry and i think it also just shows you that he has learned the lesson from president trump that the only thing you can really do too little of is praise him. i don't think it's actually a fail of epistemology because i think senator kennedy knew exactly what he is doing. he understands what his role is. >> you think he's lying? >> i think he's fully cognizant of the facts and the whole point of this exercise and what you are seeing in that tape is a preview of the senate impeachment trial. the whole point of it is to create enough of an alternative narrative, enough doubt. >> kelly anne conway was prophetic when she called them alternative facts. >> they are living in a separate world in which crowd strike is a crazy ukrainian firm that somehow stole the dnc server and hacked it or something.

it doesn't make any sense. it isn't true. but the point is to have something to talk about. to have some kind of narrative to go against what are the plain facts that the rest of the world prescribes to in reality? >> i feel like we're in a car driving towards a cliff and about to drive off it. >> there was a great book written about putin's russia called "nothing is true and everything is possible." and that perfectly describes the reality we live in in the united states. >> did you watch sasha barren cohen take down the social media companies? >> he was talking about comedy and we don't agree on the same set of facts and, therefore, the joke cannot be funny to everyone because it's not based on reality. and i think he was making a point about comedy. but it applies to everything else. >> he was making a broad point about how social media is the -- is the greatest propaganda machine ever created in history. >> and i say this as somebody who lived through it on the clinton campaign. i mean, even reporters have pushed back, you know, since the election. when i would say like, no, the russian bots, you know,

pretending to be black bernie supporters, those were in my mentions and they had an impact. i can't quantify it. i can't say ten voters didn't go because of a meme they saw on facebook. i cannot prove it but i know that it had some sort of an impact because people parrot the lines that they see in this propaganda back to you when you're talking about the campaign. and that's something we need to keep an eye on. >> ten seconds. >> something has changed. during the clinton impeachment, the democrats who defended him say the behavior was bad but not impeachable. what strikes me now is republicans aren't even saying the behavior's bad. >> the analysis is that they can't criticize him at all because they'll draw his ire. >> i think they would want to make that defense actually. >> guys, stay with us. after the break, we'll talk to a former white house lawyer as we wait to hear if another former white house attorney, don mcgahn, must do i have. and later we'll hear from one of the politicians to back mike bloomberg's bid for president. a southern mayor straight out of biden country. keep it here. uthern mayor straif

biden country. keep it here or members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa what do we wburger...inner? i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. tothe problem is corporationsfix anything. and the people who run and own them have purchased our democracy. here's the difference between me and the other candidates. i don't think we can fix our democracy from the inside. i don't believe washington politicians

and big corporations will let that happen. the only way we can make change happen is from the outside. for me, this comes down to whether you trust the politicians or the people. and if you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations, and give the people the tools they need to fix our democracy. a national referendum. term limits. eliminating corporate money in politics. making it easy to vote. i trust the people. and as president, i will give you tools we need to fix our democracy. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

welcome back. as we mentioned, we are waiting a federal judge to rule on whether former white house counsel don mcgahn has to testify in the house impeachment inquiry. in a case that could have implications for other witnesses who have refused to cooperate with the house's impeachment investigations. as democrats continue their investigation into the president's efforts to dig up dirt on the bidens, republicans are opening their own probes into the bidens. including, the vice president's dealings with ukraine. for his part, biden has indicated he's okay with being investigated -- investigated to an extent. >> lindsey graham is asking the secretary of state for all your documents and contacts relating back to ukraine in 2016. >> well, first off, they can have all the documents. there's not a single person, not a single solitary person in ukraine or in europe or in the imf, international monetary

fund, or our allies that said anything other than i've carried out the policy without one single moment of hesitation of the united states government in dealing with corruption in ukraine. >> for more, i'm joined by nbc news justin correspondent pete williams. also with us, white house counsel to president obama, also a supporter of joe biden's presidential campaign. pete, what are we waiting for from this judge? when do we think we're going to get an answer? >> whenever she's ready. she said that she would issue her ruling by the close of business today barring unforeseen circumstances. so i suppose if it's going to come today, it could come anytime. and of course, this is a largely untested question. it's been the long-standing view of both republican and democratic administrations, versus forcefully argued for example by janet reno that congress cannot compel the president's senior most advisors to testify any more than they can drag the president himself

up to congress. that it's a separation of powers issue. that is largely untested in court. there was one court ruling during the george w. bush administration over the testimony of harriet meyers, the former white house counsel. a judge ruled that there is no such immunity unless it involves very sensitive issues of national security. that decision was appealed and before the appeals court could rule, the case was settled. so there really isn't any binding case law here. so this judge will be largely writing on a blank slate. but it is an important thing because it -- it -- there really isn't much court decision to go on here. the other thing, katy, is no matter what the judge says, i'm sure it would be appealed. and then the question is, when would we get an answer? would the whole impeachment process be over? or the appeals court act lickety-split and get a decision? you know, your guess is as good as mine about whether the house

judiciary committee will get its apparent wish to have mcgahn testify before its own impeachment hearings which the committee said in a court filing last week that it wanted to do. >> what would the implications be, bob? >> well, it's unclear at the moment because we haven't seen the opinion. and it's going to, when it comes out, presumably be a thorough exploration of the issues that pete williams just cited a minute ago. clearly, as he says, there has been an understanding on the part of many scholars that certainly there is a privilege it attaches to the relationship between the white house counsel and the president but it's a kw qualified, not an absolute immunity. and asserting its powers essentially at their zenith in the exercise of their impeachment responsibility. so it is very difficult to imagine a judge finding in favor of the administration on the claim of absolute immunity in any circumstances and very unlikely that it would do so in this particular impeachment-related context.

how -- however, the judge frames it, the issue perhaps her opinions raised will be only known when the opinion is issued and can be examined. and by the way, it's certainly true there will be appeals and those appeals even on an expedited basis could consume months. >> pete, tell me if i'm wrong but this judge has questioned the idea of absolute immunity in the past, right? >> during the oral argument. remember, this whole thing started in march when the committee asked mcgahn voluntarily to provide some evidence. he said no. and then in april, they sent him the subpoena. and the white house counsel sent a letter saying no. you can't do that. and the president has directed mcgahn not to respond to your subpoena. so that is, again, not something that the trump administration has invented. but it's really -- this has been the long-standing view of the justice department. but that's the justice department's opinion and the courts are going to have to ultimately decide this question. by the way, you may wonder why hasn't this question been worked

out given all the decades of fights between congress and white houses? >> certainly. yeah. >> and the answer is because usually, when there is a subpoena and threats of contempt and lots of fish shaking, that eventually, these things get worked out. they get settled. and the courts sort of hate to referee these disputes so they're not usually eager to jump into these things. but the real reason there haven't been more court rulings is the two sides usually come to an agreement. >> would there be ground rules established, bob, for any sort of testimony that could come from mcgahn? areas that -- that need to be off limits? national security things. would it have to be behind closed doors? given his proximity to the president. >> no, it wouldn't have to be conducted behind closed doors. but you raise an important point. first of all, in the past, and by the way, in the event of litigation here, if mcgahn were to testify, that means that he's compelled to appear. but it does not mean that he would not decline to answer certain questions on the basis of a claim of privilege.

so you could have an entirely different round and successive round of litigation around questions even when he does appear that he declines to answer. also, as is true of another lawsuit currently pending that was brought to clarify his legal obligations, their legal obligations, by former national security advisor john bolton and his deputy. there is a singular bit of significance. singular significance that is attaches to the president's communications with senior advisors about national security and foreign policy matters. that was a feature of the case that pete williams cited. a case cited by judge bates in the george bush administration. the importance that potentially national security conversations carry for defining the scope of the privilege. that is not so much an issue, though it could be potentially part of an issue in mcgahn's case. however, it is certainly very much an issue in the case of the national security advisor john bolton and his deputy.

>> can i just ask you quickly, bob, you are a supporter of joe biden's. are you surprised at the lengths of which republicans are willing to -- to embrace a conspiracy theory? about him. >> i don't know that anybody who's observed the republican party under donald trump could be surprised by it. bear in mind these issues have been pursued. these conspiracy theories have been develop squd promulgated. even the face of extraordinarily enough testimony by senior administration officials under oath in the last ten days. that there was no truth to these theories. and yet, they continue on the part of people like senator glen or senator kennedy and certainly the president himself. i have to say nobody who's observed the last 2 1/2 years could be surprised by this. >> bob, thank you very much for joining us. pete williams, thank you as well. if you get a ruling, come back and join us. >> you bet. >> coming up, mike bloomberg and his billions with a b try to reshape the democratic race. but first a special honor today

at the white house for conan, the military working dog who helped forces in the syria raid that killed isis leader abu bakr al-baghdadi. he was injured in the mission but has since made a full recovery. the dog, that is. the president described him as incredible and brilliant. we'll be right back. for the holidays.♪ ♪'cause no matter how far away you roam.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

hbut mike bloomberg became thele clasguy whoho mdid good. after building a business that created thousands of jobs he took charge of a city still reeling from 9/11 a three-term mayor who helped bring it back from the ashes bringing jobs and thousands of affordable housing units with it. after witnessing the terrible toll of gun violence... he helped create a movement to protect families across america. and stood up to the coal lobby and this administration to protect this planet from climate change. and now, he's taking on... him. to rebuild a country and restore faith in the dream that defines us. where the wealthy will pay more in taxes and the middle class get their fair share. everyone without health insurance can get it

and everyone who likes theirs keep it. and where jobs won't just help you get by, but get ahead. and on all those things mike blomberg intends to make good. jobs creator. leader. problem solver. mike bloomberg for president. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. 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. ♪ ♪

♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ♪when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion,♪ ♪upset stomach, diarrhea. try pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. ♪nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea.♪ get powerful relief with pepto bismol liquicaps. defeating trump and

rebuilding america is the most urgent and important fight of our lives. and i'm going all in. welcome back. tonight in 2020 vision, the newest white house hopeful makes his first campaign appearance. a day after announcing his ka candidacy, michael bloomberg met with voters in another folk, virginia, a state he helped turn blue earlier this month. bloomberg's first foreyay on to the campaign trail has been accompanied by a historic $35 million ad buy. the largest single week purchase ever. it's almost more than all the other democratic candidates, other than follow billionairetime steybillionaire tom steyer, have spent on television ads all year. and yet, that $35 million is less than 1% -- 1% -- of bloomberg's net worth. so put it another way, the media net worth of a household in this

country would be about $97,000. that would be equal to a family going out spending $55 out. maybe a movie. >> for years, i've been using my resources for the things that matter to me. i was lucky enough to build a successful company. it has been very successful and i've used all of it to give back to help america. >> commercials and campaign stops may be bloomberg's only means of reaching most americans because he's not accepting campaign contributions, he will fail to qualify for any debate under the current dnc rules. and that will not be the only challenge he is facing. we're going to ask one of his most vocal supporters about the road ahead and what it'll take for bloomberg to win the democratic nomination and defeat president trump. that's when we come back.

it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step, (loud fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

i'm a regular in my neighborhood. i'm a regular at my local coffee shop and my local barber shop. when you shop small you help support your community - from after school programs to the arts! so become a regular, more regularly. because for every dollar you spend at a small business, an average of 67 cents stays in the community. join me and american express on small business saturday, november 30th, and see how shopping small adds up. get new deals all day during amazon's black friday sale. low prices and free shipping on millions of items. ♪ needs somebody to love the fun starts november 28. the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪

i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ you don't need to be in it. he need to stay where he is.

>> no. >> why do you feel so strongly that he should stay out? >> if he just like trump, about the money and think that he can buy president. >> i feel that he should have started in the beginning what he was doing instead of waiting till the last minute. so i'm -- my choice already have the choice of the candidate who i am for. but my choice is already -- already keeping the same person who i want to have for my president. >> welcome back. those were some south carolina voters who are not supporting michael bloomberg. well, we've got one here who is. and he is the mayor of south carolina's largest city, columbia, south carolina. mayor steve benjamin announced his support for the former new york city mayor one week ago. the mayor joins me now. mayor benjamin, respond to those voters. >> oh, no. i -- you know, i've said from the very beginning that i believe the party is -- is really suffering from an embarrassment of riches. we have really good men and women who represent the

diversity of the democratic party. i think that mike bloomberg adds dramatically to that field. a record of accomplishment in the private sector after getting fired from his job, starts a business, and builds it to a global brand. hiring over 300,000 people over the course of the last 30 plus years. stepping in as mayor of new york city post-9/11 and helping to rebuild the city in an amazing way over 12 years. $100 billion budget literally at the center of a nearly $2 trillion gdp. and certainly, his work as a philanthropist. i've had the opportunity to work with mike bloomberg as a mayor but also in his work post-office. he's -- he's a -- appropriated his wealth to try and tackle some of the most vexing issues of our time. climate change. taking some of these 400 million guns off the streets of america. taking on the gun lobby in its backyard in virginia and obviously some of the incredible

philanthropic work he's doing across the globe. so -- >> i hear you on all those things but i'm just curious. what does he need to do to convince voters? like the ones we just heard, three in south carolina, that he's the right candidate. one of them didn't like the wealth. they thought the wealth was a bad thing. he's just going to come buy his way through our elections, which he is doing because he's not going to be taking donations. another said he should have gotten in earlier and the third person just said, no, i don't think he should be involved. >> well, first of all, i'll answer all three of them. one, obviously, i think -- i think we're in a dangerous space in the democratic party and we start vilifying wealth. if we say people can start a business, you can make $100,000, you can make $1 million, once you get well past $1 million that you're automatically a bad person is nonsense and foolishness. it shifts the party too far left and we risk losing a significant part of the american populous that still believes in the

american dream. you go to school. you get an education. you start a business. you treat people right. you should be able to participate in the american economy. the fact that mike bloomberg's not taking money from special interest, any special interest, means that he can't be bought. he is devoting his wealth and he's agreed to actually die poor. to give away all of his health over the course of his lifetime. i think that's something that ought to be louted. i will say every candidate starting somewhere regardless of where you are at local level, statd leve state level, national level. you're going to introduce yourself. we're going to see his story. middle-class kid. dad never made more than $6,000 a year. >> is it ironic that he's using $34 million or $35 million to show that he came from middle-class roots? >> i don't think -- i don't think that's ironic. i mean, i -- again, katy, i mean, i think choosing not to accept funds from the private sector or -- or individuals, i'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

i think it's clearly showing that he's only not taking campaign contributions, he will work for the american people and the american people only if he's elected president. >> let me ask you about something beyond his money. i was a reporter here in new york city in local news and wnbc, wpix, news 12 brooklyn if you're from around new york. i covered the mayor extensively. i covered stop-and-frisk ste an extensively. it was a controversial policy. one that did not go over well with large portions of this population. he refused to apologize for it year after year after year after year. and now, he is. is that timing suspect? >> sure. i think the wpix was channel 11 as a matter of fact. but the -- the reality is that, you know, i had conversations with the mayor early this year and over dinner last month. and acknowledged that all the incredible work he's done, there's so many different spaces that stop-and-frisk was a threshold issue for a number of folks. so addressing that in a way that

was frank, that was contrite, i sat through the speech at ccc in brooklyn last week. and talked to a number of the church members afterwards who -- who accepted that apology. but who were even more interested in what comes next. how do we take -- i spent time as a state -- director of the state's second largest law enforcement here in south carolina and some of the systemic issues that have affected policing. we've got -- we've got to propose some major challenges to how we fix that going forward. i accepted the apology. the people and -- and the sanctuary in brooklyn accepted it as well. but i think it -- it -- it requires a much more involved and constant conversation with the american public. that shows that note only the work that -- that not only stop-and-frisk but also the work that mike bloomberg did in reducing incarceration rates by 30%. mayor de blasio's continued to do great work now. we can even see the possibility of riker's island actually closing.

personal investment and philanthropic investment by others and new york city's money and starting the young men's initiative that served as a forerunner for the president obama's my brother's keeper initiative. there is a lot of good work being dope thene there. i think it's going to be up to the mayor just like the work he did in virginia today. going out and introducing himself to people. i think the more people learn about mike bloomberg, the more and more they'll be excited about the stability he could provide as president and certainly alternative he presents to another four years of donald trump which represents the existential threat to this great republic. >> mayor, thank you very much for joining us. we appreciate your time. >> thank you, katy. >> and we've got more on the 2020 race ahead. i think there was a problem with his ear piece, which is why he didn't come back on camera. plus, the president's fight with senior military leadership just took another turn. h moderately o severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission,

with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once.

so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

whit looks like this. heart failure look like? ♪the beat goes on entresto is a heart failure pill that helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. ♪la-di-la-di-di don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪the beat goes on yeah! he borrowed billions donald trump failed as a businessman. and left a trail of bankruptcy and broken promises. he hasn't changed. i started a tiny investment business,

and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates, i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy, and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure. let us bring back tonight's panel. nick, zerlina, and brett. let's talk about 2020. we just did a whole segment on bloomberg. the mayor didn't really engage in those three voters that completely vote him off immediately. >> well, they sound like the voters i've talked to since bloomberg announced. and, frankly, i think that his apology for stop-and-frisk with regards to black voters. you saw some of the indifference from those folks. but i think the apology just comes too close to the announcement for president. and so that's when it looks like a -- a cynical, political move.

oh, i have to check that box before i can run. but i think that in order to gain traction in communities of color, specifically in this moment, you need to put in the work and that takes time. >> let me ask about that. you covered new york politics. i covered new york city. i covered stop-and-frisk and it divided the city. i mean, it divided this city. mayor bloomberg was seen as the mayor for white people and not the mayor for black people. how does he overcome that image? is it -- is it -- is it just -- it's a new york and it's not going to -- not going to spread across the rest of the country? >> well, actually, you know, in his terms as mayor and -- and -- and in running for mayor in new york city, a diverse and liberal city, he had the support of many black voters, many hispanic voters. of course. but like, look, i think he is very different from a tom steyer and very different from schultz, right? he's been in office.

he has a record. he's been three terms as a mayor in new york city. >> he also pushed through that third term. >> it was -- it was -- it was wild. but look. you know, he is not a -- a novice. and i think he has some advantages that come with him, which is he's got a lot of money obviously. but, two, he has a team around him that's been there forever and are loyal to him. they are very data focused. they have an idea for how to do it. so i would say i'm slightly bullish just compared to the consensus which says he's dead in the water from the beginning. just a little. >> you make a point about data. the team is very good at data. >> we were really focused on data in 2016 in the hilary clinton campaign. i'm just going to say that to say it's not that you ignore the data but there's also human nature and common sense that goes into this too. >> can he overcome -- i mean, he's under water in iowa not that he's campaigning there. but he's under water in south carolina, not that he's campaigning there.

is he going to be able to overcome that? >> i think his theory of the race is that it is going to come down to a choice between joe biden and elizabeth warren. and both of them are going to look very unpal aatable. if that -- at that point, then d democrats might start thinking a little more with their heads rather than their hearts. it helps that he has unlimited money but it also helps he has a record which should comfort i think most liberal-leaning democratic voters and i think it's -- it -- it is -- you know, nick makes a very important point. in 2005, running as a republican, he was a republican that he won re-election with close to 50% of the african-american vote. that's a very strong case for -- for his -- for -- for the success of his mayoralty. you could make a serious case that stop-and-frisk got completely out of control during

his second and third terms as mayor. >> i think that's point. sorry. >> go ahead. >> i think that is the distinction. the conversation has changed so much about criminal justice issues since 2005 and i think sort of a response to nick as well. while black people will vote for a candidate that, you know, implements policies that are bad for black people. now that we know everything that had to do with the implications of stop-and-frisk at post eric garner, post black lives matter, you are not going to have black people give you an ear. especially, because you just apologized right before you announced your campaign. >> let me ask this. if biden doesn't make it past south carolina, if his candidacy falters and he's right now enjoying the majority of black support. where does that black support go? >> look, i don't know the answer to that question. i've been trying to figure >> look, i don't know the answer to that question. i'm trying to figure it out every single day. i'm keeping a close eye on some of the campaigns of color that are speaking directly to the

communities. they're not polling as high as the other candidates. maybe it's not reflected yet. i think julian castro, there is definitely a grassroots groundswell for him. he was table stay in, even though he was at risk of having to drop out because of low fundraising. he didn't make the debate, but he was able to make inroads. he made more money the day of the debate than head up into this point in that single day. additionally, i think kamala harris is going to places in south carolina that barack obama didn't even go to. she is going to some of those smaller counties in south carolina that no other campaign is going to. i'm not saying that's going to be the thing that makes the difference, but i am saying these are things that we should watch. in addition to the polling, in addition to the polling, and some of the narratives that are being built about moderate voters when the base of the party is black and brown people. >> let me ask you, who is the candidate in november of 2020 that progressive voters will

vote for and moderate voters will vote for. who is that middle ground candidate? >> it's not about the candidate themselves being in the middle. it's being able to speak to the issues. >> yeah. >> i think the party, it's not about cult of personality anymore. i mean, some of the candidates have that. >> i'm not talking -- i'm saying you have to be enough. that sliver of voters that makes it enough to put you over the edge, because hillary clinton lost by a sliver of voters in a few different area. >> but other stuff that is actually more important, and i always say it which is that a million black people stayed home. a million. >> but that's my point. who the do they come out for? >> well that. >> come out for someone who is actually talk about stop and frisk and why it impacted people of color and incarcerated your family members and your cousins and had a direct impact on you, or an intellectual argument. >> i think the big question that is hard to answer right now, so when she says a million stayed

home. that's vis-a-vis obama. the big question was obama a unique high point in black turnout or can it be replicated? i think there are some reasons to think maybe it can't be replicated by anybody else, and the previous high point is probably where the black vote is for democrats. but really, it's -- it could be either way. and i think that there are different theories of how to win the race. and a second theory is it's -- >> wait, hold on, hold on. pete williams is with us. he has a ruling on don mcgahn. pete, what do you have? >> don mcgahn must testify before the house judiciary committee, the judge has ruled, but in so doing he must appear before the committee the judge says, but he doesn't have to answer all the questions. he says don mcgahn must appear before the committee to provide testimony and he can invoke executive privilege where appropriate.

>> where appropriate, though. how do you define that? >> well, the judge defines that. and it's a 120-page ruling. and i haven't read all 120 pages. >> pete, you've got to work on your speed reading. >> in the last 30 seconds. but she cites the previous opinion we were talking about earlier in the harriet miers case by judge john bates and says that when you get into questions of national security, it may be appropriate for people to decline to answer the congress' questions. so i think the important thing here, katy, this is part one. this isn't the end of the day by any means you. be sure that the justice department, which has been representing don mcgahn in this dispute will appeal. and the only question is whether the judge is going to stay her own ruling. i'm just looking to the end here. it doesn't say anything about staying her own ruling. it just says that the house judiciary committee's motion is granted and the government's motion for summary judgment, in other words, throw the case out, is denied.

but she doesn't say anything about staying her own ruling. that already be the next step here. the government will either ask her to stay the effect of the ruling while they appeal, and if she doesn't do that, then they'll ask the appeals court to put the ruling on hold. i think it will be very unlikely as a result of what just happened that we can expect to see mcgann testify before congress any time soon. it's 118-page ruling. i guess that explains why it took a why. >> no doubt about that. when do you expect the white house will try to appeal? today? late today, tomorrow? is there a deadline? >> no. they've got i think the rule is 15 days or something like that. >> okay. >> but they'll act very quickly here. they're going to seek a stay very, very quickly. perhaps by tomorrow, perhaps even i suppose they could file a notice of appeal tonight. but, you know, i'm relatively confident that in some desk drawer somewhere, the justice department is the filing of a notice of appeal. all they have to do is bring it to life and file it.

>> got it. brett, this is a big deal. >> what are we going to learn from don mcgahn that we didn't learn from the mueller? >> it's a big deal for precedent. >> it's an interesting -- if in fact he does testify, it is a big deal. i think the only person who really needs to testify from who we haven't heard is john bolton. and it's not because he is going to tell us stuff we don't know, although he might. it's because bolton has political standing with hard-core conservatives that no other figure in this inquiry has. >> do you think bolton would throw the president under a bus? >> in a heart beat. >> you think so? would it behoove him politica y politically? >> the president threw john under the bus. >> his career? >> his sense is that he's going to take him where his convictions lead. that's always been his style. >> you guys got an opinion on this? >> i would be surprised by that, but i don't know him personally. i just think he is a man who has restarted his pac. he wants to raise moby from republican donors.

he wants to have a future in gop politics. i can see him kind of openly or obviously throwing him under the bus, but we'll seattle. what do you think? >> shouldn't he just tell the truth? >> i guess there are ways of telling the truth. >> tell the truth. that would be my message to don mcgahn. >> this could have implications, pete, for the other people the house wants to call. we were talking about this a little bit earlier as well. john bolton, who we just mentioned. also mick mulvaney and others. what say you? >> well, the further away you get from the closest advisers to the president, the more reduced this claim of privilege will be. just reading through what the judge says here, she says "what's at irssue in this case, whether senior level presidential aides like mcgahn are legally required to respond to a subpoena that a committee of congress has issued by appearing before the committee for testimony, despite any

presidential directive prohibiting such a response." that's very different, she says, from the question of whether specific information that the aides may be asked to provide can be withheld from the committee. so in other words, she these is a two-step thing. first is do they have to respond to the subpoena? yes. do they have to respond to every question? no. >> talk to me about the precedent this could set going forward. you mention that other white houses have tangled with congress in this way in the past, but ultimately, when there is talk of censure or some kind of punishment, they've come to the table. what does this mean going forward? >> well, this ruling itself doesn't set any precedent. the only way to set a precedent is for the appeals court to rule on this. we haven't had an appeals court ruling on this question. the decision cited today that was appealed and settled. so we never got an appeals court ruling.

we'll see if this one actually does generate an appeals court ruling. but this dispute between the congress and the white house in many different ways is making new law. >> will this have any bearing over documents that congress is looking for or just testimony? >> i think that this is basically about appearance, about in-person testimony, not about a subpoena for documents. that's a different question. >> we just have a few seconds left. is it good political strategy to have don mcgahn come and sit before them even if he doesn't answer any questions? >> yes, because he is supposed to be complying with a lawful subpoena. i think that the precedent that is set in this moment is that we don't have two coequal branches of government if one can just tell the other one. no. >> well, that's good point. all right, guy, it's been a rock 'n roll hour. we've got the don mcgahn ruling as expected. pete williams, thank you so much for coming back to the camera, pete confess sorry, bret

stephens, zerlina maxwell that is all for tonight. we will be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." with the legal decision coming down moments before the 6:00 p.m. hour, at 6:00 p.m. you have your very own lawyer to break it down. so "the beat with ari melber" starts right this second. ari, you get it two seconds early. >> it's true. we're reading it right now. thank you so much, katy tur. we begin with this breaking news. moments ago a federal judge has ruled in the biggest case growing out of the mueller report ordering former white house counsel don mcgahn, the star witness of the mueller report to testify before congress. as you probably know if you follow the news, this is a big decision that affects not only issues in the mueller case, but the open impeachment probe. implications for many other white house officials have potential witnesses and trump allies who have in various ways been delaying or refusing to testify in the impeachment probe into the