that's our show for today. "a.m. joy" will be back tomorrow, 10:00 a.m. eastern. up next, alex witt has latest. alex, i miss you. >> i miss you, too. >> i wish you were here. >> i do, too. did you have a nice thanksgiving? >> i had a wonderful thanksgiving. too much food, though, too much food. >> that's how it goes. see you, my friend. good day to all of you, from msnbc world headquarters in new york, it's high noon in the east, 9:00 a.m. out west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." new leadership, new deadlines, as the judiciary committee takes the reins on impeachment. big decisions lie ahead for the president. plus, a closer look at the lawyer who's standing by his boss. a former staffer explains the connections between rudy giuliani and president trump that go back decades. homestretch. with two months left for

democratic candidates to make their mark in iowa, julian castro's going to join me to talk strategy and the state of the race. and new details a day after yet another attack on london bridge. what we're learning about the suspect's motive and his previous arrest on terror charges. but we start with day 68 of the impeachment inquiry. this week the investigation into the president enters a new phase as the spotlight turns to the judiciary committee. that committee will hold its first public hearing wednesday. behind the scenes, some democrats saying they already have enough evidence to impeach. >> if it comes to it, my vote would be for impeachment. he abused his power. i think that he tried to interfere with elections. i think there was bribery involved. >> well, one former gop congressman claims some republicans are privately fuming about the president's behavior. >> i think my former colleagues

are in a situation where they understand their base pressure, but there's no question, having spoken with many of them privately, they are absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the president's behavior. they resent being put in this position all the time. >> this as chairman jerry nadler in a new letter to the president has given him an opportunity to participate in the impeachment hearings, setting two deadlines. nadler saying the president has until sunday to let the committee know whether he will send one of his attorneys to that wednesday hearing and then until friday to decide if he would like to call any of his own witnesses. nbc white house correspondent kelly o'donnell is traveling and following the president in florida for us. kelly, with a good saturday to you, and i hope that you had a good thanksgiving, my friend, i'd like to get to the white house's response to all these deadlines. >> reporter: well, we're waiting to get a sense of what they will say officially, and they may be using whatever time is available under these deadlines to sort of leave everyone in a bit of suspense. as you described it, tomorrow's deadline is for the wednesday

hearing, which will be about the constitutional grounds of impeachment, so more of an academic exercise in the first public hearing within the house judiciary committee. their thinking is that it's been a generation or two since we've had previous impeachment hearings and to give people more of a context for what constitutes impeachment and what is permissible under that. and so, by tomorrow, the president would have the student if he wants to send white house lawyers or personal lawyers to attend that. the more sweeping deadline is friday, which would involve the president's mounting any kind of defense in the house judiciary committee going forward throughout whatever the impeachment phase would look like under that committee. so, that is the much bigger deal and a much bigger deadline, and that would be on friday. and the real question for the white house is, on one hand, they have complained about not having due process, about not being included in the proceedings, not being able to call their own witnesses and

feeling that they've been cut out of this. and then by virtue of that, saying it's unfair. so, that's one argument. but if they were to embrace participation in the hearings, then they, in effect, legitimize them. and they've also been arguing that it is an illegitimate, sham process. so, that means the president has sort of a rock and a hard place decision. if he takes part, he can really be constrained in calling it illegitimate. if he doesn't, then he continues the ability to not mount his own defense within the confines of the impeachment hearings. so, that's the dilemma, and we'll have to see which way the white house goes. part of what could come up with this, of course, is that come the next phase, if there is, in fact, an impeachment finding in the house and it goes to the senate where republicans are in charge, that may be an environment where the white house would feel more comfortable. so, that's sort of what we're looking at in terms of the time pressure on president trump and the white house. alex? >> okay, kelly o'donnell, perfect setup for my next

conversation. thank you for that. joining me now, anne gearan, white house correspondent and john harwood, cnbc editor at large. welcome, guys. kelly did a great job setting it up, as the president seems to be between a rock and a hard place, because you've got chairman nadler, who's offering the president and his attorneys to appear, to call witnesses and the like. so that really refutes the argument that they have no say in house proceedings. how, john, do you think the white house reacts now? >> reporter: well, i think there's one additional element to the dilemma that kelly was describing, and that is that the defense of the president's conduct is bad to non-existent. so, i think the general expectation is that the president and the white house will decide not to participate so they can keep calling it a sham process. if they show up, then they're going to have to engage in describing a defense, and they don't really have one. we saw that in the house intelligence committee hearings. republicans mainly yelled at the

witnesses or complained about democratic procedures or invoked conspiracy theories. >> process, right. >> they simply don't have a factual defense, and the facts have been pretty clearly shown. >> so, what happens next, anne? do you think the white house issues some sort of a response? are you hearing anything, how they're going to proceed in this next phase? >> well, alex, i am hearing a couple of things. i was speaking to a republican official a couple of days ago who was saying that they -- a lot of, at least the house republicans, are not expecting the president to mount a formal defense or send witnesses. they probably will -- the white house probably will respond before the wednesday hearing, mostly to call the process illegitimate. but what this official was saying was very interesting, which is that the president is really having a bit of a difficult time with this because he likes a fight, and he feels

very much, he, the president, feels very much that he's been treated unfairly, and he thinks he is his own best defense and he wants to get out there and make that defense but is being told really pretty universally not to do so and to keep doing what he is doing, which is going out and being president. >> okay. let's get to what we expect with wednesday, john, because as i mentioned earlier, it is the judiciary committee's first public hearing. what do democrats hope to achieve? what are they expecting from that day? >> well, as kelly said in the setup piece, it's kind of an academic discussion. it's an attempt to lay out what are grounds for impeachment, explain what it means -- high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery, the things that are listed in the constitution. but i really think it's the beginning of the moment for jerry nadler to try to drive home the case with voters who

haven't tuned in. i think at each stage of this process, alex, there is going to be escalating public attention. and even though the intelligence committee hearings didn't move the needle all that much in terms of public opinion, we've seen that opinion public has shifted over a number of months. and as we get to the house floor, when they vote on articles, and then the senate trial, i think that's when people who have not tuned in will have an opportunity to do so. and if democrats are going to succeed, they're going to need to lay out clearly and in easy ways for the public to understand exactly what the stakes are and what they say the president did. >> look, anne, job makes a good point about people not really tuning in and not having moved the needle much on the prospect of impeachment. they're pretty solidly two entrenched camps on this. but are there expectations that these upcoming hearings will move the needle? will people watch more? let's think about where we are in this here, right? it's december. it's a really busy time of year.

>> yeah, i think one of the things that democrats are intended to do on wednesday is to get this off to a slow start so that it does not look to those who are paying attention like democrats are ramming this thing through before christmas. so, wednesday you will see, you know, it's going to be a slow walk through the constitution. what is impeachment? why do we have it? what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors? and is what the president did km kmi kmis rate with that standard? and i think a lot of people will click off the television because it's not going to be exciting. but what democrats will point to afterward is, look, this is our duty, we're trying to take this one step at a time and we're sorry it's the most more exciting. and it is december. people are not going to be paying the kind of attention that they would have earlier in

the fall. democrats knew that. they knew what the calendar was going to look like and felt that it was more important to do this in a step-by-step fashion and also to try to wrap it up before the real beginning of the, you know, bell-ringing for iowa and new hampshire, at the beginning of next year, than it was to either do it very quickly in the fall or to take a very, very long time and try to drag it into next year. >> super interesting article in the "washington post" i want to get your reaction to, both of you, on the president's photo op play. facing impeachment, the president strives to look hard at work. in less than two weeks, the president has toured a manufacturing plant in texas, a visit to dover air force base to receive remains of fallen soldiers, surprised u.s. troops in afghanistan on thanksgiving. and next week heads to london for a nato summit. so, anne, you first on the calculation here. >> yeah, i mean, the president is often criticized for not

having a very full public calendar, and i think the white house is making a very calculated decision here to show him in public a lot, going out and doing very presidential things. certainly, the thanksgiving trip to afghanistan is the most dramatic of those, but he's been -- he's just been out a lot doing a lot more things, and you know, essentially being able to point to that as, hey, look, you know, i'm just here doing my job. >> right. what about the efficacy of this strategy, john, assuming the president stays on course? regardless of lack of legislative accomplishments, though there was the passage of animal cruelty act, which by the way, had 100% support, so that really was a very easy thing to sign -- does that just mere appearance of being busy impress voters? >> no. and with his voters, with the base that he is attempting to keep mobilized behind him, he

doesn't need to impress them. but compared to the alternative, especially after the health scare he's had recently, it serves his interests to be out there. but it is not convincing at all. it's quite plain from the first three years of donald trump's presidency, he's not that much interested in the job itself, in the job of being president. his principal concern now -- that's why the key word in anne's previous answer was calculated -- his key concern now is himself and trying to position himself for what's going to be a very bad run of news in impeachment in the senate trial. i don't think anyone who is not already firmly in donald trump's camp is going to be persuaded that the guy who hangs out in the residence and tweets constantly rather than focus on the nuts and bolts of the presidency is suddenly doing that. >> can i ask both of you -- and john, i'll let you have a stab first at this answer -- what do you think is the most grievance

situation the president faces via the judiciary committee? >> oh, i think it's the very clear evidence that he used his power as president over foreign policy to try to extract domestic political advantage with help from ukraine. and not just domestic political advantage in the abstract, false political advantage. he wanted an investigation that was into a noncrime that was fabricated by russian intelligence to absolve russia and absolve president trump himself in 2016. the plain facts of that, which came out in countless witness testimonies, from diplomats, from trump appointees, from career people -- that is very clear, though they may add some obstruction of justice counts

from the mueller investigation, but the bare facts of that i think is where his real exposure is. >> true, absolutely. but anne, cynics will say the hearings pointed these things out time and time again. and as we said earlier in this interview, it's not moved the needle at this point. so, if impeachment is a political entity, how worried really is the white house about this? >> i'll tell you one thing they are concerned about, alex, which is that the cumulative effect of what the president is alleged to have done and the evidence showing that quite a lot of it is just incontrovertible, that is -- at some point, there is a tipping point for moderate republicans, and those are both elected moderate republicans and moderate republicans who voted for trump the last time. some of them holding their nose, some of them not. and will the economy and other

things that moderate republicans generally think are going well be enough to sustain that same choice this time out? you know, the effect of impeachment may have a longer-term effect there that lasts beyond what's likely to be a few weeks of the house and then the senate trial. >> okay. sage comments from you both, as always, anne and john. thank you so much, guys. next, he's in 12th place in the real clear politics average of national polls. so, how does julian castro plan on moving up? i'm going to ask him. and later, how did it happen? how did rudy giuliani go from america's mayor to the center of the impeachment probe? and where might his journey end? ? i'm finding it hard to stay on top of things 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.

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ in connemara. right! connemara it is! there's one gift the whole family can share this holiday season, their story. give the gift of discovery, with an ancestrydna kit. (logo whooshes) giv♪ th(logo chiming)overy, - [woman] with shark's duoclean, i don't just clean, i deep clean carpets and floors. so i got this. yep, this too. even long hair and pet hair are no problem. but the one thing i won't have to clean is this. because the shark self-cleaning brush roll removes the hair wrap while i clean. - [narrator] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself. now available in our new uplight model.

♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

[ dramatic music ]ing ]

ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back! now to new details on the terror attack on london bridge. forensic teams are still on the scene where a convicted terrorist launched a knife attack yesterday, leaving two dead and three wounded. here's a look at today's front pages of british newspapers. the headline in "the telegraph" -- "terror returns to london bridge." the "daily mail" highlights bravery on the bridge, celebrating civilians who subdued that attacker with a fire extinguisher. and "the daily express" sticking with that theme -- "the heroes who stood up to terror." nbc's erin mclaughlin is joining us from the scene. erin, with a welcome to you, talk about the latest from there. this must have shaken up

londoners. >> reporter: absolutely, alex. and missing from those headlines you were just reading there, the serious questions now being asked here in london about how this happened, especially considering who the suspect is. police have identified him as 28-year-old usman khan. he was a convicted terrorist, convicted in 2012 of plotting to bomb the u.s. embassy as well as the london stock exchange. he was sent to prison but released early, something that the judge in 2012 warned authorities not to do. in his written statement, he said that he believed khan and others who were convicted alongside him posed a serious and ongoing threat to the public if he was ever released on license. but that's exactly what happened. he was electronically tagged. it's a system that even the prime minister today says isn't working. take a listen.

>> it is clear to me that this guy was out. he had served half of his sentence and he was out on automatic early release, and i have long said that this system simply isn't working. i have said for a long time now that i think that the practice of automatic early release, in other words, where you cut a sentence in half and let very serious, violent offenders out early, simply isn't working, and i think you've had some very good evidence of how that isn't working, i'm afraid, with this case. >> reporter: and this could have political implications for prime minister boris johnson. keep in mind, general elections some 13 days away, and there's also questions about the government's decision to lower the threat level here in the uk in the weeks prior to this attack. >> very, very challenging times there in london. erin mclaughlin, thank you very much for the update there from london bridge. what could be called one final shot for democrats to

impeach the president. what can the judiciary committee do that the intel committee did not? committee did not? my parents never taught me anything about managing money.

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. ♪ this thanksgiving weekend, we've seen some of the 2020

candidates taking time to give back to the less fortunate, and that includes julian castro, who is using the holiday as a time to roll out his plan to help end hunger in america. the former san antonio mayor and former housing and urban development secretary is joining me now, though sadly, just on the phone. mr. secretary, i'm so sorry about the technical difficulties that keep us from having a face-to-face conversation, but it's great to talk with you again. i hope you had a great thanksgiving. let's get right to this plan that you rolled out on wednesday. why is this so important to you? >> yeah, i want to build an america where everyone counts. and throughout this campaign, i have been focused not only on making sure that the middle class can prosper, but also that people who are poor prosper, too. because somewhere along the way over the years i think as democrats, you know, we've been fighting for the middle class, which we have to do and i'm doing, but we've forgotten to talk about and fight intensely for people who are poor. so we rolled out a plan to end

hunger in the united states a couple days ago. it includes in investing in the ability of families everywhere to get the food that they needed. a good example of that is that we still have millions of schoolchildren who go hungry every day because the meal that they get at school is their only. i want to expand the ability of schools to make sure that students get the meals that they need, also to help in providing food to families so that they can have it after school, and do things like expand wic and expand s.n.a.p. benefits so that families get the food that they need. >> yeah. and i know having gone through your book that you as a child even at times were concerned about the way that the family -- your mother, at least -- would pay for the food for you and your brother. so, this is something that, you have these programs. the first question that will be asked is how do you plan to pay for them? >> i've actually laid out a number of different ways that we can pay for investments that we

need to make so that everybody's able to prosper in this country, from raising the top marginal tax rate to repealing and replacing these terrible trump tax cuts with a tax code that actually rewards people who have to work for a living, instead of rewarding only wealthy corporations and individuals, to an inheritance tax that would replace the gift tax and estate tax as well as a wealth inequality tax that would start for people with over $40 million in assets. so, there are a number of different ways that we can pay for the investments that we need to make so that every single family can prosper. >> all right. well, i'm certain that is a welcome initiative that many people will be glad to hear about. let's now move to the state of the race. you know we are just a couple of months to the iowa caucuses. new polls this week show that you have as much as 2% of the vote, depending on the polls. cnn shows you tied for tenth place with 1%. quinnipiac has you tied with eighth -- in eighth place,

rather, with 2%. what are your plans to boost your support? >> we have nine weeks left until the iowa caucus, and i've been telling folks that last week when there were ten weeks left that ten weeks these days in politics is like ten lifetimes. so, i think more and more people recognize that throughout this campaign that march to the beat of our own drummer. i'm different. i've been speaking up for people who are aren't spoken for, the most vulnerable, the people who are often forgotten. and i haven't been afraid to tell blunt truths, even getting out to iowa and saying, look, we need to re-evaluate how we do our presidential nominating process, because states like iowa, new hampshire, don't reflect the diversity of our nation or our party. i haven't been afraid to tackle issues like police reform and immigration that a lot of candidates want to stay away

from. but i believe that we need to put forward a bold, new vision for our country in years to come. so, i think little by little, more people are catching on to that, and i believe that i can move up by the time that we get to iowa, beat expectations there and then move on from there. >> you know you've got a couple of extra names in that race that you didn't have before. what do you make of the fact that you've got both deval patrick and michael bloomberg joining the race? >> you know, one time we had 25 people in this race. i think with the addition of governor patrick and mayor bloomberg that we're back up to 18. so yeah, i don't know whether that seems crowded or not compared to where we were. this is a historic race because there are more people running than we've ever had run for a democratic primary. i understand why that is, because i think a lot of people feel the urgency to replace donald trump as president, and a lot of americans sense that urgency. and you know, i'm going to run my race and articulate my own vision for the future of this country.

and you know, each candidate i'm sure is going to do that as well. it is a little bit late, but then again, things always change in the last few weeks in iowa, so let's see what happens. >> yeah, well, we certainly will do that. the big story coming out of washington, the first judiciary committee impeachment hearing is coming up this week. what are you hearing from voters on the issue of impeachment? how much does it dominate the conversatio conversations? >> it's part of it. you know, i think the first thing that people want to know when you get out there is they want to know, what are you going to do for me and my family? how are you going to make sure that my kid can get a good education, that i'll have good job opportunities, that we'll have good health care? but they're also very concerned about a president who when they hear the facts and they learn more at these proceedings seems to be corrupt and serving himself instead of the people that he's supposed to represent. and the intelligence committee and chairman schiff i think did a good job of offering the opportunity for the other side,

for witnesses that may have been supportive of president trump present their case. that's not something that the administration wants to do right now because i think they really don't have a defense. so what we saw was very compelling evidence that this president has violated his oath of office, he's abused his power. and i think we're going to find more of that when the judiciary committee hearings start. >> is there any sense, though, as you, sir, are deep into campaigning, that the investigation, whatever amount of focus there is on this, on impeachment, it helps or hurts your chances at 2020? does it take away from the conversations that you wish you would be having, that your constituents, potential constituents across this country wish you would be having? >> i think we can do, as many people have said, two things at once. we can walk and chew gum. people definitely want to know, look, what is your vision for the future of this country? and i know i am -- i'm sure other candidates are -- we're laying out how we can create a

stronger america for every single person out there. at the same time, you know, whether it's a city council member or school board member, a governor, a senator, or the president himself, people want to know whether the folks that they elect are abiding by the law and whether they're abusing their power or not. so this is important. it is historic in our country, and it deserves the airing and the evidence that is being laid out there. >> all right. former mayor, former secretary, and 2020 presidential candidate julian castro, thank you so much for the time and we hope to see you face-to-face next time on our camera. thank you so much. >> thanks a lot, alex. >> okay. >> take care. coming up, the crisis of refugees at the border and the whistle-blower trying to stop it. and it's a holiday mess for millions of membeamericans. travel troubles on your return home. ans. travel troubles on your return home ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

1 in 5 people you meet wear yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'. poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day.

if you're like us, you have a box of old video tapes, film reels, and photos, just degrading away in your closet. - [nick] legacybox saves these memories by professionally digitizing them on dvd, thumb drive, or the cloud. - [adam] it's easy. load legacybox with your media, and you get back your originals and new digitized copies. - [nick] legacybox is simple and safe with over a half a million satisfied customers. - preserve your memories today. visit legacybox.com and get 40% off. - [nick] that's legacybox.com.

in "power, politics and paychecks," elizabeth warren's wealth tax maintains strong, steady support. in a "new york times"/survey monkey poll, 63% of americans approve of the 2% tarx on househol households, bus that's down from july. now the support among college-educated men, only 41.5% of them are okay with this wealth tax. don't you hear the closing bell ending the best month on wall street since june, despite the major indices slipping a bit

on friday? the nasdaq had the best november, gaining 4.5%. the dow and s&p 500 each gaining about 3.5%. well, next wednesday's house judiciary hearings are now reportedly seen as the democrats', quote, one final shot to shore up public support for impeachment. according to politico, democrats agree that impeaching the president is exactly what our constitution prescribes to prevent corruption and abuse of executive power, but they also acknowledge that, quote, public sentiment might be impossible to move in the weeks before an anticipated historic house vote on impeaching this president. with me now are victoria defrancesco soto, msnbc contributor and professor at university of texas' lbj school of public affairs, and rick tyler, msnbc political analyst and republican strategist. good to see both of you. let's get right into it, victoria with you first. a recent political co-morning consult poll shows the intelligence committee's public hearing did not do much to move the needle for impeachment, so what can, what should democrats

do differently at judiciary hearings? >> right, alex. so, we've seen a split of about 50/50 for weeks, and to be honest, i don't think there's much that will be done over the next couple of weeks in terms of seeing a big surge one way or another. but in thinking about this through a democratic -- small "d" -- democratic process, this is what our founders had in mind, in having these checks and balances. maybe this isn't what the public opinion overwhelmingly wants, but it's what's right, and it's part of what makes this a democracy and differentiates us, say from a country like venezuela, where the president is all powerful and there are no checks and balances. that being said, alex, i do also want to note, in that "morning consult" poll, there was a little bit of movement among independents, not a lot -- 4% -- but these are the folks that really matter at the end of the day. the ds are going to be with impeachment and the rs are going

to be not going for impeachment, but who is in the middle? those are those moveable folks. i think that as we move along, the devil's in the details in who the independents are leaning toward in terms of the impeachment process. >> rick, we listened to ann guerra from the "washington post" who says the hearings will go very slowly. the word is on wednesday they go through the definition of impeachable offense. what do you think are the specific points that democrats should emphasize to try to gain any republican support for impeachment? >> well, they have to explain the implications, as just was stated -- when a president is out of control and a president who exhibits corruption and he doesn't have any checks and balances. i suspect they'll spend a lot of time on this term, high crimes and misdemeanors, which is really an patient term and it didn't mean specifically crimes like that are listed in the legal definition of law.

what it really meant was someone who is abusing power. and so, in other words, you know, the president could declare that he's going to nuke canada tomorrow, but there's no law against nuking canada, but that would be a high crime and misdemeanor that certainly would be prosecuted. the problem with this whole high crimes and misdemeanor and the whole idea of impeachment is that, you know, if the economy was tanking and people were doing terrible and unemployment was high, i suspect the support for impeachment would probably be much greater. plus, we have this hyperpartisanship and we have such a mistrust of government on both parties, democrat and republican. and so, when people are given the choice of the status quo and let's stick to what we have to what is the unknown, they're going to stick to the status quo. >> mm-hmm. but rick, you have chairman nadler who's giving the white house december 6th as a deadline to decide whether or not the president's attorneys are going to take part in these

impeachment proceedings. do you expect the legal team for this president to make some sort of a presentation or request witnesses? >> they haven't said so, so far, but i think they probably will. that's my guess. but no, who knows? it seems sort of ridiculous that you're going to go through an impeachment process and the president who's been complaining that he hasn't been able to present his point of view, would not take the opportunity to present his point of view. >> okay, but then he cannot continue complaining that way with that point of view. >> oh, the president's going to complain about everything. he's been on both sides of every issue, you know, since the very beginning on every single subject. and you know, there's a tweet for that. there's a reason for -- there's a tweet for that because the president's been virtually on every side of every issue. so again, he's on both sithz of this issue. it's an unfair process, but now we're at point in the process where the president is allowed to present his point of view. that's the process. let's say the police are investigating a crime. they don't bring along the suspect and say, hey, is this all right with you that we collect evidence?

you know, this is not the way the process works. now we're at the point where all of the evidence has been collected, and the president gets to present, you know, their case. and i suspect if they have a good case and the facts were with him, then they would want to do this, but they -- the truth is, for everybody who's read up on this, you know, the facts aren't in dispute. almost nobody's disputing the facts. >> yeah. >> we're down to one thing now, and that is, did what the president do, which was try to trade arms for dirt with the president of ukraine -- did -- what he did, is that an impeachable defense? that's the single question out today and that's what i think nadler will spend a lot of time discussing. >> as you started saying weeks ago, arms for dirt. arms for dirt. that was your coined phrase there. >> nice and simple. >> yeah. victoria, say the president decides to call his own witnesses. who do you think would ultimately make the case for impeachment? maybe not intentionally, but when queried by this committee, that's what would end up happening?

>> so, alex, i have a different little bit with rick. i don't know that he necessarily gets involved in this process, because i'm going off of what we saw with this florida rally earlier this week. and i think he is fighting this one out in the court of republican/republican base public opinion. why is he going to expose himself to going to the more formal congressional route? you know, at least this way, by not getting involved with the formal route, he can keep criticizing them. he can say, oh, they don't get this, they don't understand, they're biased. and i think it's much more comfortable for trump, who is the president of the media, the president of framing his message, to do it that way. so, i am not convinced that he will actually go that route because he knows that with the democrats in control in the house that he puts himself up for a lot of danger and a lot of exposure, that he doesn't want

to put himself in that position. so i'm thinking this plays out in the court of public opinion. >> all right. well, we have until wednesday to see which of you two is correct. thank you very much, rick and victoria. good to see you both. thanks much. >> thanks. up next, the evolution of rudy giuliani. how he's gone from america's mayor to the president's private investigator. why has he become so close to president trump? he could've just been the middle class kid who made good. but mike bloomberg became the guy who did 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. hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪ if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong?

life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it or take xgeva® serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work...

...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you. the president's personal attorney in the headlines this week for his ties to the situation in ukraine. "the new york times" and "washington post" reporting about rudy giuliani's negotiations for work in ukraine while attempting to dig up dirt on former vice president biden, according to people familiar with the discussions. giuliani tweeted this denial about the reports. it's important to point out, rudy giuliani has not been indicted, he is not accused of any crime. for some history on president trump's connection to giuliani, i'm joined by david freelander of "vanity fair," who's wrote a pretty comprehensive and somewhat damning article, as well as ken friedman, former press secretary from giuliani's 1993 campaign. gentlemen, with a welcome to you both. david, the article you wrote this month about the 1990s, the roots of rudy giuliani's bond

with donald trump. as we look at this article, we see what was then to what's happening now. giuliani's playbook seems a lot like trump's. explain that. >> i think it's just sort of what they try to do is just flood the zone with news. i mean, people say when they covered rudy giuliani, reporter friends of mine, former colleagues, that there was just so much news all the time. i mean, they never let you stop. they never let you rest. and trump seemed to have the same sort of technique in a way, where you just always be in front of the cameras, always be sort of flooding television screens and newspapers, and of course, they didn't have the internet really back in giuliani's days in the same way, but to be constantly out there and finding your enemies and rallying your base against them. >> and ken, you were the press secretary for the mayor in the 1993 mayoral campaign. so, this giuliani that has been written about and the one that you worked with in the '90s, does this resonate with you? >> well, as i've said in "the

new york times" op ed last month, he's changed dramatically. in the old days, he had integrity. today it seems like he'll work for anybody who pays him. a lot of dirty money coming out of ukraine and turkey and iran. you know, he says he's working pro bono for the president, but pro bono is short for pro bono publico, a latin phrase which means for the public good, not for the private or personal good. and i think, you know, money is an aphrodisiac, and rudy has been seduced by it. >> so, i mean, if you want to put it really simply, is it just greed? >> that would probably be an overstatement. it's a need to remain relevant. all politicians want that. >> what was he like when you worked with him? >> he was a regular guy, you know? pizza and coke. and he always paid for his slice and his soda.

and now you fast forward and you've got $500,000 from parnas and fruman and no one can figure out what they did for that money. seems like they worked for him in ukraine, they didn't work for him. >> i want to play an interview on the "today" show. here it is. >> i hate pandering. have all my life. it's one of the worst characteristics that politicians have, pandering to people. >> do you care -- >> i resist it. there's a dishonesty in that that really offends me. >> do you care about being popular? >> no, not -- no. i care about being effective. i care about being respected. and i care about history. >> are you afraid, mr. mayor, that you could be indicted? >> oh, wow. how long have you known me, ed?

>> i've known you several years. >> you think i'm afraid? >> i don't know. >> do you think i get afraid? >> well -- >> i did the right thing. i represented my client in a very, very effective way. i was so effective that i discovered a pattern of corruption that the washington press has been covering up for three or four years. >> do you see a difference there, ken? >> yes, certainly, i do. he may not have been afraid then and he may have cared about history then, but he certainly doesn't care about his legacy now, as he told "the new yorker." he'll be dead, so he doesn't care what people say about him. you know, in the teaser for this segment, you referred to the evolution of rudy giuliani. i see more of a devolution of rudy giuliani. >> take a listen to what the president said about rudy giuliani just this week. here's that, guys. >> what was rudy giuliani doing in ukraine on your behalf? >> well, you have to ask that to rudy, but rudy, i don't even

know if -- i know he was going to go to ukraine, and i think he canceled a trip. but you know, rudy has other clients other than me. i'm one person that -- >> so you didn't direct him to go there on your behalf? you didn't -- >> no. no. but you have to understand, rudy is a great corruption fighter. >> is that what it's about, david? is that why rudy giuliani's working with the president? he's a corruption fighter? i mean, what's in it for rudy? what's in it for trump? >> i don't think rudy is in this because he is really offended by corruption in ukraine, nor is donald trump. i felt like these guys were close back in the day. i mean, i think they're just kind of mutual life rafts for each other at this point. i mean, nobody was supporting donald trump in the republican party before rudy giuliani became one of his loudest supporters, you know. i think nobody was supporting rudy giuliani other than donald trump. and so, now these two guys -- and they sort of see the world in this similar way, where you just are constantly trying to get your political advantage and who cares what the consequences are, who cares what the rules are. >> but david, how do you explain

this connection? there is an apparent loyalty that exists from rudy giuliani to this president that you do not see him paying to others in his inner circle. what's driving that. >> i think we see it now, but from that clip you just rolled, i mean, i think, who knows how much longer this relationship's going to last? i promise you, promise you that the minute it is not beneficial to either of them, it would be a different story. >> okay, so that begs this question -- you may not like it or even make sense currently of rudy giuliani's approach or his messaging, but how effective, david, is giuliani when he's defending the president? >> oh, i mean, not at all. i mean, it just -- watching him is just hard to watch. i mean, it's like a chaos merchant on tv, you know, reporters' text messages. he's not making sense. we're just watching this guy swing wildly around in real time. who knows what he'll say next? who knows what tomorrow will bring? >> yet, he's still out there, ken. what's your take on his efficacy? >> i think that's the idea is to

exhaust everybody by creating chaos. i mean, giuliani said when asked by a reporter what his goal was, and it was, he said, to disrupt the world. and i think that's what the two of them are attempting to do. you know, when he was named cybersecurity czar by trump, i expected him to go around the world and trade access to trump for retainers. so, none of this surprises me. >> sobering, david freelander and ken friedman. guys, thank you very much for the conversation. i look forward to talking to you both again. >> thank you. the coming deadlines on impeachment and the decisions that could deform the fate of the trump presidency, coming up. the trump presidency, comi ungp. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. the holidays are easier... when you can do this..

post this... and be there like this. so we give you that. and right now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10... and get one free. frustrated that everyday activities cause wrinkles and there's nothing you can do about it? now there's a solution! downy wrinkleguard is a fabric conditioner that helps protect you from wrinkles all day. just pour the dye free liquid into the rinse dispenser. after a day of wear, pants washed with downy wrinkleguard and detergent are virtually wrinkle free. it even comes unscented. if you don't love downy wrinkleguard, we'll give you your money back.

for adults with moderately to 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®.

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

good day from msnbc world headquarters here in new york. welcome, everyone, to "weekends with alex witt." it's been a very busy 24 hours in the impeachment inquiry. let's bring you up to date. >> the stage is almost set as the impeachment probe enters its next phase. on wednesday, the house judiciary committee holds its first public hearing on impeachment. right now we're waiting for the white house to announce its decision on whether it will send attorneys to the hearing to represent the president. >> the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, finding himself under even more scrutiny. the "washington post" has new reporting about the very complicated web of ukraine-focused relationships connected not to the president but to rudy giuliani himself. >> the democrats in a new letter

to president trump setting a deadline of one week from today for him to decide if he plans to call his own witnesses to testify in the process. >> in that letter, congressman jerry nadler previewing the highly anticipated report from the intelligence committee. that document will describe, among other things, a months-long effort in which president trump again sought for interference in our elections for his personal and political benefit at the expense of our national interest and an unprecedented campaign of obstruction in an effort to prevent the committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. >> we've got plenty to get to this hour on "msnbc live" with our team of reporters and analysts, and we begin with a new deadline for the president. the chair of the judiciary committee giving the president until next friday to say if he will present evidence or call witnesses. this would happen while the committee considers impeachment articles, but it is not the only deadline that the white house faces. nbc white house correspondent kelly o'donnell's following the president in florida for us. kelly, another good day to you. let's get to the white house, which first has a deadline to

deal with tomorrow. what's that one all about? >> reporter: that takes a look at what's coming up on wednesday, which is the first public hearing of the house judiciary committee, which will sort of set the scene for this next phase. the judiciary committee will have jurisdiction over the actual sort of process in the house. what we saw in the intelligence committee was the fac fact-gathering, trying to get together the elements that they will ultimately fashion into articles of impeachment, sort of the case against the president. think of the judiciary committee as the forum where the next phase plays out. and so, by tomorrow, the white house would need to tell the judiciary committee if they intend to send any lawyers, either personal lawyers of the president or white house counsel lawyers, to have the opportunity to question witnesses who will be on the panel next wednesday, and that's more of an academic setting, where there will be experts who will talk about the constitutional grounds of impeachment. what are the elements that lawmakers would consider, that

would rise to, as we've heard it sort of in our common language, you know, high crimes and misdemeanors? what does that really mean and how do lawmakers get to that, if that's what their ultimate decision is? so, it would be more of an academic phase to sort of educate the public as well as lawmakers about what their responsibilities are and what the scope of it is. so, that's the tomorrow deadline associated with wednesday. now, the president will be out of the country wednesday, going to london for a two-day nato conference. and so, he will not be present, although invited to be there, if he chooses to. when we look ahead to next friday, that's the bigger, more sweeping deadline, because this one coming from the judiciary committee is saying to the president, if you want to mount any defense at all inside the judiciary committee, this is the time to let us know. if you want to call witnesses, which would have to be approved by democrats. so, imagine the whistle-blower, hunter biden, others, even adam schiff himself, some of the names that republicans have tossed about -- they need to notify the committee if there's going to be any gop side

witnesses or if the president intends to have counsel present. the dilemma, of course, alex, is that the president, the white house, his allies, have said they don't believe this has been a legitimate process, and so it seems unlikely that they would want to engage. and yet, at the same time, they have also complained about not being a part of the process and afforded rights. so, he's in that middle ground of having to decide how much does he want to go all in on fighting impeachment, where impeachment is happening, or if he wants to sort of stay out of it and fight it more politically outside of capitol hill. alex? >> yeah, well, we have a little bit over 24 hours to decide which way he's going to turn in that one. kelly o'donnell, thank you from west palm beach. john nichols is national affairs correspondent at "the nation." john, with a welcome to you, i want to dig into what you did this week in washington as you spoke to members on the house judiciary committee. what are they telling you that they anticipate to happen in next week's proceedings? >> well, it's very interesting coming off kelly's report that what they're telling me is that

they don't know exactly, because so much of this is up for grabs. we have to see how the president and his lawyers respond. so these next 24-48 hours become very, very significant in that regard. >> okay. >> but with that said, with that said, they are speaking a great deal about the importance of communicating to the american people the idea of impeachment, literally bringing academics and scholars and experts in to discuss it, and frankly, those will not be dull hearings. they will have, i think, an energy, and i guess on some people's part, an thuenthusiasm >> you talk about how things have very much up in the air. i don't know if you heard my earlier conversation between rick and victoria. rick thinks they'll call witnesses. victoria does not. where do you lie in this, in terms of the intel you're gathering? >> well, it's very interesting that i was with congressman

jamie raskin at the start of the week. he's a key player on the committee, a constitutional law professor who really knows his way around a lot of these issues. and he was literally looking, as i was interviewing him, he was looking at a judge's ruling as regards a potential witness, don mcgahn. and so, one of the things that's important to remember is that just as adam schiff could conceivably at the intelligence committee call more witnesses, it is also possible that the judiciary committee, which has sought to get some people to testify, might indeed call some folks along the way. that is yet to be decided. what we do know for sure is that there will be experts on impeachment testifying, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the judiciary committee might have some of what i refer to as fact witnesses. >> given that impeachment is a political entity, i want to get your reaction to the new poll

saying 50% of americans say president trump should be impeached and removed from office, but that number has stayed pretty much where it is for the last month or so. is there a sense that democrats need to do more to boost the public support? and if so, what might that be? >> well, i think that these new polls that have come out have been very, very interesting, because you're right, they don't show radical movement. i think there are folks who thought after the intelligence hearings, there would be this big jump. i think before the intelligence hearings, they had already locked in a lot of sentiment on this, so i wasn't that surprised. but here's something that's really notable. and within that, some of these recent polls, is the incredibly high level of support for impeachment among women. and this is -- >> it's 61%, right? 61% of women. >> mm-hmm. >> that is a lot. >> it is high, and it's been growing rapidly, you know, in each new poll. it really has had significant

jumps. and if we remember that women are more likely voters than men. i think that what you're going to see is that a lot of members will certainly look at that top line, and you know, much of the media will talk about, oh, it seems to be relatively steady, but a lot of folks i think will begin to look into some of the internal numbers, some of these demographics. i heard a lot about that on capitol hill. and i also think that as we move into this process, as impeachment itself is explained, one of the great challenges of where this will move is who is explaining and how well it's done. if the republicans simply say, oh, this is a witch hunt, i don't think they'll do themselves any favor. if they make a strong case on why what's happening isn't impeachable, they might help themselves. by the same token, if democrats put the right people up front, and frankly, make a strong case for why this isn't just about donald trump, this is about the office of the presidency, something that was done a lot back in 1974 with nixon -- i

think you might see some numbers move. >> do you think that republicans have the strength of the facts, though, on their side, to make such defenses? >> i don't. but that is my opinion. obviously, you could find someone who would tell you that they do. what i do think is important in this regard, though, is that in the intelligence committee, it seemed to me that devin nunes and jim jordan and others did a horrible job of defending the president. they basically attacked the process and tried to point attention elsewhere. judiciary is different. there are members of judiciary on the republican side who i think might be able to make a case that impeachment is not appropriate in this regard. and i happen to disagree with them, but that's where they ought to go if they want to convince people. >> can i get you to explain the difference conversely when we talk about 61% of women who now have increasing their support for impeachment? you have 40% of men. that's a pretty wide gap that

support impeachment and removal. why the big difference? >> well, we have had a gender gap in this country for a long time. this is not a new development. one of the things that's significant is, of course, that donald trump did reasonably well among white women in the 2016 election. he got some pretty good numbers there. african-american, latina, you can run through, most nonwhite women were not fans. what we have seen in 2017, '18 and '19, is a lot of evidence that suburban women have moved, you know, away from donald trump. that has not been so much the case with men. and you know, we could dig into it deeper and keeper, but my sense is that this gender gap is likely to hold as we move forward. it's just how high does that percentage of women who are against -- or who are in favor of impeaching and removing donald trump -- how high does it go? if it goes very, very high, that becomes significant to this process. >> okay.

john nichols, a significant conversation, my friend. thank you so much for that. >> thank you. here's another story we're following for you. this article just out today -- democrats have loathed john bolton for years. now he could be their star witness against trump. the former national security adviser's at the center of several events being investigated in the inquiry, and joiningmi me now, the author of that article. you write that bolton could be the most dangerous witness against this president. why is that? >> for a couple of reasons. first of all, as you noted, he is at the center of a couple events that have already been investigated by house democrats in this investigation. for example, he was one of the participants at that infamous july 10th white house meeting during which gordon sondland, the ambassador to the eu, kind of hijacked it and explicitly laid out the quid pro quo with ukraine that president trump has denied. bolton, of course, according to fiona hill, he cut that meeting short and immediately told hill to inform the lawyers, which is

that he knew something fishy was afoot. the other thing is that he was staunching opposed to trump's july 25th phone call with ukraine's president because he was afraid that the president would use it to air his personal political grievances, which of course is exactly what happened. the other important thing is that as a former national security adviser, if he were to testify against the president, he would be the most high-profile witness to date, not to mention the fact that he also has receipts, because he was a prolific note-taker. and so, if he has documents and notes and contemporaneous memos to back up his assertions, that would certainly help democrats cement their case against the president. >> yeah. you know he's waiting for the courts to decide, though, whether or not he should get to testify. that ruling i think is expected on december 10th. >> yes. >> so, would he be a willing witness? is there a sense of that or not? >> i mean, i think one thing that was really interesting were his tweets over the last week that seem to indicate that he

has some disapproval towards the president. we also know that his tenure at the white house wasn't exactly smooth sailing. >> right. >> and so, if the federal judge does decide to let bolton testify, i do think that he would appear willingly and he would be very open about what he knows. >> do you have a sense of the white house's thinking on all this? are they worried that he would get up and testify? >> yeah, the white house has actually been terrified of bolton more than any other witness so far because of the fact that he actually took notes. that was the component of all of this, not just the fact that he was involved in these events but that he has documentation, potentially, backing up his recollection, and that can be very difficult for the white house to push against. >> to counter, yeah. sonam sheth of business insider, thank you. let's go to 2020 and former president joe biden blitzing iowa by bus. it's an 800-mile hunt in search of support in that critical

state. polls show his one-time lead has vanished. the bus arrived in council bluff just a little bit ago, where we find nbc's mike memoli, who is joining us right now. mike, with a welcome to you. so, today is the first appearance by mr. biden in about a week or so. what do we expect over the next -- is it an eight-day tour? it's a long one. >> reporter: yeah, that's right, alex. we're in council bluffs, as you mentioned, just across the michigan river from nebraska to the west. in eight days, we'll be in cedar rapids across the mississippi river. and he will spend those days on the no malarkey bus. this is part of -- as you've been having this conversation about impeachment that's dominating the conversation in washington -- the idea for the biden campaign is to step up the pace of campaigning and really get away from the teleprompter, get off the stage and do what they think joe biden does best, which is interact one on one with voters across the state, specifically away from the bigger cities, actually, and much more in the rural towns.

the biden campaign believes that joe biden can win the nomination without winning iowa, but they know that if he wins here it really speeds up the nomination fight, goes a long way to quelling doubts about his candidacy. so this represents really a new phase of the campaign where they want biden to be up close and personal and talking with voters as much as he can and really earning those delegates. now, he has one of the biggest operations here in iyt way of all the candidates -- 26 offices, 100 paid staff. he hasn't been outespning anybody else on the airwaves, though. pete buttigieg, actually, tom steyer and now michael bloomberg among those spending more money, but again, the biden campaign feels there's no better campaign politician out there than joe biden and they're looking to maximize the opportunities with voters. >> and they compromise on a national perspective, we should point out he still leads in countrywide polls. but are they responding specifically to the lower poll numbers in the hawkeye state? is that really why he's out there, despite what they tell you he could win nationally? >> reporter: yeah, well, there's no doubt that this is really a

close race here. no one really has that much of a head of steam. i think the most you see in terms of a leader in the polls here is in the low 20s, even some polls showing no one above the high teens. and what the biden campaign says, is that if you look inside the numbers, the number one issue continues to be motivating voters, is who can beat donald trump? and for mayor pete buttigieg, for instance, he may be for now in first place in the pack, but they say, even among his voters, they think joe biden actually is the best on that score. so they think there's a lot of soft support that these voters can move in any way, in the 70 or so days before the iowa caucuses, and that's why we use the word malarkey. yes, it's not the most current term for it, perhaps, but what the biden campaign says is, is biden is going to use this bus tour to really reinforce to voters that he is the candidate who can end donald trump's malarkey once and for all. >> all right, well, it's a good phrase. thank you very much, mike memoli, for bringing it to us. get your track shoes on, my friend. you're going to be running. appreciate that.

coming up, the reported internal strife in kamala harris' campaign and her poor performance in the polls. but up next, the alleged mistake that led to the london bridge attack and the question, why was that suspect free? why w? 1 in 5 people you meet wear dentures. yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'. poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us.

♪ spread a little love today ♪ spread a little love my-y way ♪

♪ spread a little something to remember ♪ philadelphia cream cheese. made with fresh milk and real cream makes your recipes their holiday favourites. the holidays are made with philly.

20 past the hour with this breaking news. police in the netherlands announcing that a 35-year-old man has just been arrested in connection with yesterday's stabbing attack on that busy shopping street in the hague. authorities say, "the man has no

fixed place of residence. he will be transferred to a police station where he will be questioned." three people were treated and released from an area hospital. prior to the arrest, investigators said they were considering all motives, including terrorism, but it is not yet clear if police have now determined a motive. we're learning more about that other attack just hours before, the stabbing attack on london bridge. as forensic teams continue to search for evidence there, here's a warning -- we're going to have some video here that some of you may find very disturbing, in which it shows the knife-wielding assailant pinned to the ground, a plain-clothed police officer walking away with a knife there. moments later, police shooting and killing that suspect. well, british newspapers hailing civilians who responded as heroes. police have identified the suspect as a convicted terrorist out on early release. nbc's erin mclaughlin is joining us once again from london bridge. and erin, there are some new questions that are emerging about this suspect. let's discuss that. what do you know? >> reporter: yeah, some serious

questions, alex, about how all of this unfolded, especially when you consider that the suspect identified as 28-year-old usman khan, had been a convicted terrorist. he was convicted in 2012 of plotting to bomb the u.s. embassy here in london as well as the london stock exchange. at the time of his sentencing, the judge warning authorities not to put him out on early release, out on license, as they call, in the uk, saying that he and his fellow plotters posed a long-term risk to the united kingdom, that he should not be let out. even with rehabilitation. but that's exactly what happened. his sentence was cut in half. he was let out, electronically tagged, and today prime minister boris johnson saying that the whole episode is symptomatic of a broken system. >> it does not make sense for us as a society to put terrorist --

people convicted of terrorist offenses, of serious, violent offenses, out on early release. i mean, we argue that people should serve the term of which they are sentenced. that's my immediate takeaway from this. >> reporter: and there are possible political implications here for prime minister johnson. the general elections just 13 days away, and there are more questions about the government's decision to reduce the threat level here in the united kingdom weeks prior to this attack. >> nbc's erin mclaughlin there live from london bridge. thank you, erin. we are now just days away from the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. first judiciary committee hearing set for wednesday. joining me now to discuss, democratic congressman emanuel cleaver from missouri. thank you for joining us on a holiday weekend. back in july, after reading the mueller report, when you said

you were not ready to support articles of impeachment, but you said it's clear the president committed one or more instances of obstruction of justice. now that you've heard hours of testimony from the public hearings, from the intel committee, has your decision been swayed? >> well, there is an infinite amount of information that we've received, and i had no idea that we had collected -- that the committee -- the intelligence committee had collected that kind of material. i think if everything is true, and there is no reason to believe it isn't, then that's certainly something that's worthy of impeachment. what i want to see now, and i think it would solve the whole issue -- if the president has not done anything wrong, as he has claimed and also with the choir behind him called the united states senate, then, hopefully now that we go to the

judiciary committee, they will have all of those people that the president has refused to allow to testify to come forth to now show that he's committed no crimes. >> but, sir, can the president really claim that he's done nothing wrong anymore? don't the facts far outweigh that kind of a defense? isn't it now about whether or not what he did rises to the level of impeachment? >> well, yes. i think the constitution's clear, bribery and treason are spelled out in the constitution. but here's what i was trying to say, alex, and that is that the senate is practicing politics over all else. and the white house, of course, is the same. and they don't realize that there is something called the politics of reciprocity, or the politics of identical harvest. what they're planting now will grow up later. and if i were a republican, i would start thinking, if i'm not

going to hold a president accountable, there is going to come a time that might not be too distant in the future, when something similar will happen and we'll have to be quiet, because we're going to put in place all of these things that would suggest that a president should not be impeached for anything. >> yeah, setting the standard, if you will. what about what i've read, which is that there is some mixed reviews within your constituency about the impeachment hearings? tell me what you're hearing when you talk to people in your district. >> well, i think there are a lot of people in my district, particularly in the rural areas, who are saying not that the president hasn't done anything wrong, but they're more concerned about the trade agreement. and so, they believe, falsely, that congress is only giving attention to impeachment. i've never been to an impeachment hearing. i'd like to do it just for the historical opportunity of doing it, but i'm busy in my own committee dealing with a bill

that i have drafted that deals with things that happen to people when they're in debt. and then on the other side, in the more urban parts of my congressional district, there are people who are saying, you know, vote for impeachment, don't worry about reading anything, just vote. but i think that more people come up to me and say we can't allow the president to get away with this than anybody else. but i'm hearing all kinds of things. >> so, for those people who say that, is there an appetite for a long, drawn-out impeachment battle or not? >> well, i'm not so sure, but i mean, impeachment fatigue is real, and if it continues to drag on, we could get hurt. the country could get hurt. but i think right now, i'm at a position that unless somebody can produce different evidence, we've got to do it for the sake of our country and our democracy. if people believe that you can do just about anything in this country and get away with it, i

mean, we're sending a signal to unborn generations that i think could very easily cause the collapse of the most powerful nation ever to exist. >> well, you know, you mentioned the word evidence, so i want to get to rich lowry, who wrote an article for "politico," asking, "why should democrats be content to hear from the current batch of witnesses, people who were mostly out of the loop, rather than getting testimony from the true insiders, like trump's attorney, rudy giuliani, secretary of state mike pompeo?" how do you react to that? >> well, we do need testimony from them, from the rudy giulianis and pompeos and other people in the white house. look, i believe that there are 40 or 50 people walking around who experientially saw what happened. no whistle-blower told them. they knew what happened because they saw it in real time. and i want to remind them that there were a lot of people who

went to prison during the nixon impeachment -- well, he didn't really get impeached, but the process. and i think there were 19 of them. and so, i think people are miscalculating if they think that there are no consequences for not doing this. and adam schiff hinted the other day that there are some other things that could come out later on and cause people to be convicted of obstruction of justice. >> yeah, to that point there regarding nixon, thus the moniker, all the president's men, many of whom, if not all of them, went down. emanuel cleaver, thank you for being with me. >> good to be with you. the migrant crisis at the border and the former i.c.e. officer who turned whistle-blower. what made him decide enough is enough? whatad me him decide enos enough

verizon's important to us because we facetime with her grandparents all the time. (announcer) when you have the best network, you wanna give the best network. feliz navidad! (announcer) this black friday weekend, you can give america's most reliable network and the latest iphone. i'd probably give it to her grandparents so they can take tons of photos. my mom is amazing. if i got her one of these for christmas, she'd be freaking out. (announcer) now through sunday, get up to $800 off the latest iphone when you switch. with plans starting at just $35 per line. (squeals) yeah, exciting. (announcer) happy holidays from the network that gives you more. their medicare options...ere people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs.

this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today... to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire,

find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

i've seen a case where a mother and daughter were kidnapped after being returned to mexico by the united states. they were then later given asylum in the united states. how does that not show that a mother who had a credible asylum claim was subjected to unnecessary violence by the united states? >> we are working with the government of mexico. they have promised, right, they have committed that they will do everything they can to provide

adequate protection and shelter for those individuals waiting in mexico. >> mark morgan there, acting head of customs and border protection answering questions about the border bottleneck and about whether the u.s. bears responsibility when asylum seekers become victims of violence after they are turned back at the border. joining me now, douglas stevens, an attorney and former asylum officer with u.s. citizenship and immigration services. he chose to quit his job and become a whistle-blower over this issue. he is now represented by the government accountability project. douglas, big welcome to you. let's get into this, because i know that you've given testimony about all this to a homeland security committee in congress. first of all, your assessment of mark morgan's answer there to my colleague, yamiche alcindor. >> hi, alex, and thank you. i definitely think that the u.s. has responsibility for individuals that are being harmed when they're sent back to mexico. this program is violating numerous domestic and

international laws by sending people back and causing this harm. >> so, wait, are they just pu punting? was mark morgan punting there by saying, look, mexico says they're going to do all they can to protect these people? is he essentially trying to wash the u.s.'s hands of that in terms of protecting these folks that the united states turns away? >> i mean, that's what it sounds like to me. under international law, there's this rule that's basic international law akin of not committing genocide or not acts like committing slavery. and this idea of not sending someone back to a place where it's more likely than not that they will be harmed, that is basic international law. that's something that we are violating every time that we send someone back without really assessing whether or not they would be harmed in mexico. >> so, look, douglas, your job was to interview asylum-seekers, see if they have a credible case. tell me about the moment that convinced you, you were quitting?

>> so, i did a total of five of these remain in mexico interviews. all of them were incredibly difficult. i heard a number of really atrocious stories of individuals that were passing through mexico and harmed by cartels, by police. what really did it for me was in the middle of one interview, it seemed clear that someone had a claim to being able to stay in the united states by showing that they would be harmed in mexico based on their nationality or status as a member in a particular social group. during the interview, i checked with one of my supervisors to see if we could use that to let them stay in the united states, and i was told flat out no. and at that point, it was clear to me that -- >> were you given a reason? i mean, you're just told, nope? >> i was just told no. i was not really surprised. the system -- the interviews, their structure is clearly designed to make individuals fail and send everyone back without really giving them a fair shot. so, the fact that i was told

that we couldn't apply a particular part of the law so that they could stay wasn't terribly surprising. >> look, mark morgan has also mentioned asylum fraud, and i want to get to gist of what he said. let's listen on that. >> migrants can no longer expect to be allowed into the interior united states based on fraudulent asylum claims. make no mistake, these initiatives, including mpp, have absolutely been a game-changer. at any given time, if anybody in the mpp process is waiting in mexico fears for their safety or concern, all they have to do is go to a u.s. port of entry and claim that, and they will be allowed to go through that process. >> really? do you want to comment on that? and also, if you know the percentage of asylum claims that actually turn out to be fraudulent? >> so, i'm not -- i don't know the number that turn out to be fraudulent. i think the administration is making a mistake in claiming that everyone that doesn't

receive asylum is making a fraudulent claim. that's akin to saying that everyone that loses a lawsuit in the united states is committing fraud. it's just -- that's just not true. every individual that i have spoken to from central america -- and there has been hundreds -- they all had a legitimate fear when they left their country, they had a legitimate fear of returning. whether or not they qualify for asylum under the law's a separate question, but these aren't fraudulent claims. >> douglas stephens, thank you very much and i look forward to speaking with you again. best of luck with everything. >> thank you. a look at bad weather this weekend, the forecast next. . a look at bad weather this weekend, the forecast next 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. rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite.

be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. now to the 56 million people on high alert for bad weather over this holiday travel weekend. from coast to coast, we're seeing snow, high winds and flash floods, which could cripple areas already under siege. in fact, several airlines are now waving change fees for passengers flying through the major airports tomorrow and monday.

nbc's janessa webb is joining us from the weather center. so, busy, busy travel day tomorrow. what can travelers expect? >> alex, the timing couldn't be worse with this massive system that's taking over 36 states. so, we have the first low that's making its way through the upper midwest to chicago right now. i just checked delays. chicago o'hare already experiencing about a 30 to an hour delay, and that's going to continue to get worse in the next 12 to 24 hours. this massive storm system will make its way to the northeast. and look at all these delays that we're expecting for tomorrow. going to be shutting down, boston to potentially all of new york airports. and it's predominantly going to start as rain before it starts to transition across buffalo into widespread snow. we are talking about a foot of accumulation in the next 24 to 36 hours. i do think the back side of this system for chicago, you could see a good shovelable snow, up to 2 to 3 inches.

minneapolis already getting a report of 3 to 4 inches, and we've already seen 36 inches from the west and another system will invade that area by tomorrow evening. from seattle to portland, san francisco. this is another storm system that will continue to follow in the next 24 hours or so. so, you can see the low that's spinning. but another issue that we're watching very closely, alex, look at this, a tornado warning has just been issued for central arkansas. so we're seeing all the elements here, just not a winter storm, but also severe weather. >> yeah, i think the only people enjoying this forecast are skiers. that's about it. okay, janessa. thank you. well, this week, the house judiciary committee will hold its first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry. with a new committee comes new rules. chairman jerry nadler in a letter to the president set a deadline for the president to decide if he wants participate in these hearings, giving him an opportunity to mount a defense of the inquiry that he has

repeatedly called a partisan sham. joining me now, nick akerman, former assistant special watergate prosecutor. nick, with a welcome, how do you think, first of all, these hearings differ from what we saw with the intel committee? >> well, i think what they're going to be doing is looking at the evidence or kind of judging what the evidence is is that the intel committee came up with. apparently, they're going to have some experts on impeachment that are going to testify about past impeachments and how it's done. there's also a question about whether or not, are they going to be considering parts of the mueller report with the obstruction of justice to determine whether that should be one of the articles of impeachment? they will be considering, of course, the articles of impeachment, which relate to the bribery extortion scheme that trump was perpetrating on ukraine. there's going to be the impeachment inquiry about the obstruction of the congress. and then you've also got the november 26th letter that was sent to donald trump by jerry

nad le nadler, offering to have him in up and testify before the house judiciary committee. and i expect that if trump really believes that his phone call is as perfect as he says it was, that his conduct was as perfect as he said it was, that he'll probably be the first person through the door -- >> do you really think donald trump would testify on his behalf? don't you think his attorneys would say, whoa, hold up? >> well, they certainly should, based on the evidence that we know about and based on the facts that came out of the hearing. but donald trump did say he was considering it. and obviously, if he is innocent as he says he is, that's the first thing he should do. if you look at what happened in the clinton situation -- and of course, this is before the prosecutors -- he invited them up to the white house where they grilled him for a period of time. it seems to me if a person is innocent, they have got nothing to be concerned about, they have nothing to worry about and

should submit themselves to questions. >> talk about the arguments, what you'll hear from republicans on this, legal arguments, not just pivot about process as in intel committee hearings. >> the problem is that the arguments they put out there have evaporated. you've got the one about trump trumpeting the idea that he said quid pro quo to gordon sondland. now we know that that was said after he had been debriefed by what was in the which isle blower report. i mean, quid pro quo i guarantee you is not in donald trump's vocabulary, that this is something he was told by lawyers in looking at various elements of bribery, and that's only one of four elements of bribery. the second item that's come up is the fact that the funds were release released at the end. but the fact of the matter is, they were only released because the jig was up, everybody was on to him. that was the point that the whistle-blower report was about to come out. so, i think that the only factual arguments that you're going to see here are really

going to be in the form of some sort of fairytale without a moral at the ending. there's just nothing that they can say factually that undercuts what the house committee has put together up to this point. >> we're going to let that analogy of a grimm's fairytale be the last word. nick, thanks. once a top-tier candidate now struggling to stay afloat. what's happening with the kamala harris campaign? afloat. what's happening with the kamala harris campaign? ed vehicles, most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology,

you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. several headlines about presidential candidate kamala harris documenting in-fighting in her campaign and containing a reg nasignation letter from a fr aide who said the staff was treated poorly. and that pictured up by the "washington post." she never xplaexplained who hsh and why she's running for president. joining me, president of the bernard center for women, politics and public policy as well as others. harris did not give voter a

clear sense why she's running. is that a fair assessment, in your mind? >> i do think that it's a fair assessment, alex. i was on-set when kamala harris had her big announcement, 20,000 people showed up and i was invigorated and i think a lot of other was. since then she'd had a lot of mixed messages. had not really found a way to talk clearly about her prosecutorial record and flip-flops around medicaid for all. she's had a distinct issue getting her message out. not to mention the fact there's been a systematic attack by right wing trolls and racists who tried to take down her campaign through social media. she's had an unfortunate mixed bag now. >> and peter, what do you make of the negative coverage of her campaign? she came out in the first campaign swinging and garnered her support? >> certainly did. co-author of the "new york times" piece have writtant one of the best articles about the

internal dysfunction of a campaign i've ever read. usually postmortem. this is a premortem. kamala harris never gave her sister maya the authority to manage the professionalism that's apparently been lacking and subsequently the most important aspect of this is, no one has been reminding her, why are you running for president? i think, frankly, her senate seat is vulnerable now. >> interesting. do you agree with that, michelle, and if you also agree that she is suffering for these reasons as outlined by the "new york times" and the "washington post," what does this say about her ability to lead the nation? >> first, i completely disagree with the caveat being it's important for people to know like senator harris i'm a fellow of what we call genermeican. african-american of jamaican dissent. i've known her, our paths split

when she went to california and i stayed in washington to go to law school. i want my statement premised around that. i know her well and believe firmly if senator harris were a white male or even a white female we would not be hearing criticisms about her campaign. i think there is absolutely no question about who she is, what she stands for, if you listen and you listen very carefully, she will tell us. i think in her very last debate performance she explained to the american public what she stands for. she spoke to black women, i believe her largest constituency and quite frankly, anyone running in 2020 the most important demographic in a democratic party and we were listening. the question is, is anybody outside of that demographic listening? i think she wouldn't be attacked if people were listening. >> i'm looking at this letter, this resignation letter from a campaign staffer saying she doesn't have a real plan to win. what does she need to do to try to correct things in iowa to

start? >> i think the first thing i would ask is, is the democratic staffer who resigned a person who had any real reason to understand what the top strategies were? no one told us was this a high-level staffer? low-level staffer? someone upset with the chief of staff? i saw the statement that says, i've worked in three presidential elections. this wasn't anyone i believe who was at the top of barack obama's campaign speaking on behalf, you know -- it could be a disgruntled person. are there problems in the campaign? there's probably a problem in every single campaign. >> right. >> i don't believe we would see this much energy spent on what may or may not be going right or wrong in her campaign if there was not a significant belief -- that she could be the person to take on donald trump. >> so my question then to both you, danielle and peter quickly, how much longer does she stay in this campaign? danielle you first, then peter. >> i mean, honestly, i would like to see her stick it through.

i would like to see her have a resurgence, because i think her last message of, i'm grog to prosecute the case against donald trump in the last debate i think is something i'd like to see her gain momentum again. >> peter can she? will she? >> politics is the art of the impossible. money and luck play an enormous role. so consequently, no one could have predicted that john kennedy the first catholic would ever be elected president much less barack obama the first african-american president. the problem is, luck is running out for kamala and the someone drying up fast. so as i said before, her senate seat is possibly in jeopardy. >> did you want to throw in donald trump when you put in those examples of the impossible? >> no. i prefer not to. >> okay. >> indicative. >> all right. peter, danielle, michelle. good to see all of you. thanks so much. ahead next hour the president's biggest promise. how is the building of trump's wall coming along? duelling realities about what's actually going up.

liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ 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.

here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not?

how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. i'm out of time, everyone. i'm alex witt. see you tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern. handing it off to kendis gibson. >> glad to know you'll be there at 7:00 a.m. >> and not you. i understand. hello everyone. i'm kendis gibson at world head he headquarters in new york.

and