my thanks to charlie sykes, jake sherman, donna edwards, matt miller. most of all, to you for watching. that does it for this hour. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. if it's monday, it's "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. we are just moments away from key members of congress being able to get their first look at the house intelligence committee's impeachment report. and before that even happens, the first details of the republican rebuttal are emerging. nbc news can confirm that the 123-page report defends the president on nearly everything.

"the new york times" reports it is at odds with sworn testimony from senior american diplomats, white house officials, and other administration officials. the times also says this. rather than take those assertions at face value, the republicans' charge that they came from civil servants who dislike mr. trump's agenda and style. and are, therefore, allowing themselves to be part of a push by democrats to undo the results of the 2016 balloting and thwart mr. trump's re-election chances in 2020. the republican report also doubles down on the russian conspiracy theory that ukraine, not russia, meddled in the 2016 election. it probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is the republican party line. just yesterday on "meet the press," senator john kennedy brazenly embraced russian disinformation in his defense of the president. >> russia was very aggressive.

and they're much more sophisticated. but the fact that russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that the president actively worked for secretary clinton. now, if i'm wrong -- >> actively worked for secretary? i mean, my goodness wait a minute. senator kennedy, you now have the president of ukraine saying he actively worked for the democratic nominee for president. i mean, now come on. i got to put up -- you realized only other person selling this argument outside the united states is this man. vladimir putin. >> and all of this is happening as the intelligence committee is set to vote tomorrow on their report, which as i said, will soon be available for committee members to review. that report then goes to the judiciary committee, which will hold its first hearing on wednesday. president trump will not be participating in that hearing. and once again, he called the investigation a hoax today. his lawyers called the process unfair and tainted.

let's get more on the breaking news from my nbc news colleagues, jeff bennett on capitol hill and white house correspondent kristen welker in london where president trump will be attending the nato summit as back home the impeachment inquiry moves forward. jeff, okay. so we're -- we're getting snippets of this republican report right now. and it's basically exonerating the president on everything. finding what all of the witnesses, and there were many of them, who publicly testified, all of what they said was basically just because they didn't like the president? >> yeah, katy. i got to tell you. my hill colleague alex obtained this report for us. as you read through it, look. it's a top-to-bottom defense of president trump that strings together and formalizes a series of republican talking points that have very little adherence to the underlying evidence. now, that's not a partisan statement. it's a statement of fact. based on the 40 hours of public testimony that we all sat through. and the 125 hours of close-door testimony that house democrats

have released the transcripts of that we've all read. so to give you a sense of what house republicans are -- are pushing here. they say this. they say that president trump did nothing wrong. this is a quote. president trump has a deep seeded, genuine, and reasonable skepticism due to its history of pervasive corruption. okay. you might read that and say, why didn't he mention corruption specifically on that july 25th call with president zelensky? well, republicans in their report have an answer for that, too. they contend that -- that biden was only mentioned in passing during that call. the call summary, they say, however, shows that president trump referenced the bidens only in passing. and that the presidents did not discuss the topic substantively. so what it appears that republicans have done is rather than look at all of the evidence in the aggregate. what they've done is separated it all out. and for each allegation, they've offered alternative, you could argue, completely false, motivations for the president's part. now, you could say why are they

doing this? because really what they need to do, heading into wednesday's hearing, is to just give republican lawmakers something to seize upon. and something for the, you know, right-wing media to seize upon as they try to come to president trump's defense. katy. >> here's the thing. yes, they may say that all those diplomats are politically motivated. they don't like the president. i'm not going to argue with that. i don't think it's true. but the president's own chief of staff, jeff, mick mulvaney admitted to this in a news conference to reporters. saying it's no big deal. get over it. the president's chief of staff admitted to this. the president himself said it on a call. the president then repeated it and then invited china to get involved. while standing in front of the white house on his way to marine one. >> yeah. look. there is no intellectual honesty here. this is what tribal politics looks like. facts be damned. >> i guess that's all the answer you need right there. kristen welker, the president is

going to be in london. he's attending this -- this nato meeting. he's angry because he says the democrats timed this to when he was overseas. it seems like he's much more focused on impeachment than he is on what he's going to be doing in london. >> well, katy, the president just touched down in london moments ago. and everything that you and jeff are discussing is creating a remarkable split screen for president trump. on the one hand, he is here for these high-stakes foreign policy talks. and on the other hand, he's making it very clear that he has his eye closely on everything that is happening back at home. the intensifying impeachment inquiry. let me read you just a few of his tweets today. katy, sent while he was on his way here to london. in one saying heading to europe to represent our country and fight for the american people while the do-nothing democrats purposely schedule an impeachment hoax hearing on the same date as nato. not nice. in another tweet, katy, claiming the republican party has never

been so united. it's a little bit of a preview of things to come over the course of this next week as president trump holds these high-level talks. now, tomorrow, he's going to be meeting with the nato secretary general. he's going to be meeting with the president of france. he's also going to be attending an event at buckingham palace with the royals and other world leaders. and he's going to be grappling with these very thorny foreign policy issues all the way. includi including syria, afghanistan, and iraq. and yet the impeachment inquiry is clearly looming very large for him, katy. and tonight, the question is what, if any, impact will it have on these talks? >> jeff and kristen, guys. thank you very much. joining me now, political correspondent steve kornacki. former clinton campaign advisor zerlina maxwell. and commentary editor noah rothman. >> i said this and i'll say it again. i think it's a good way to

describe it. it's like it's snowing here in new york and somebody coming up to you saying, no, what are you talking about? it's sunny and it's beautiful. except it's worse because it's not as easily verifiable with your own eyes. >> right and also it's worse because we're dealing with national security. and i think that this particular moment in american history is one where we actually have to stand up and agree that the facts are not in dispute. we have to agree with what our eyes are seeing despite the fact that trump famously has said, you know, don't believe what -- what you see with your eyes and what you hear with your ears. we know what the facts in this case are. the question that's before the senate at the trial is whether or not this is worthy of removing the president from office. and that, i think, is a question for all americans because do you think your president should be able to violate the law and get away with it? do you think your president should be able to try to thwart the will of the people by interfering in the upcoming election? do you think that's okay? that's a question that i think the american people can tell

their senators and their elected officials what they think on this question, as well. >> lawmakers could say, hey, listen. i don't agree with what he did. it was inappropriate. yes, i heard all of the testimony from all of those witnesses. yes, i heard mick mulvaney in the white house briefing room to reporters. i just don't agree that it's impeachable. why are they not going that route? why are they instead choosing to completely ignore all of the facts in front of them? >> the president won't let them. simple answer. >> does that mean that it is a complete cultive personality that the republicans are living in? if the president won't let them state facts? >> much to their frustration, for the most part. look, a lot of these talking points are rather inspired. the attack on the diplomats credibility. the fact that they wouldn't participate in these proceedings because they were illegitimate. with one exception. the notion that you have not heard from any of these witnesses. a smoking gun in the form of the

president making this order. that is an actual -- >> mick mulvaney basically said it, though, in front of white house reporters. >> after burisma. he was very careful not to say anything about burisma. >> quid pro quo for these investigations. >> because the burisma issue would violate the law according to the gao. they're investigating whether it would violate the law. or however. that is a very big limb to crawl out on. the notion that there is no order from this president saying explicitly what they intended to do with this aid is a big thing to stake your case on. and if something comes out -- >> but bolton -- but bolton was -- >> explicitly saying. >> there is circumstantial evidence. >> a lot of circumstantial evidence. >> this is not a criminal trial so the standards are not the same or even a civil trial. >> compelling but it is not the president making this explicit order. and that is accurate. republicans aren't making that out of thin air. >> but there's a number of people in the white house that i mean and the administration that were not allowed to testify. bolton's not testifying. kupperman's not testifying. mulvaney's not testifying. pompeo's not testifying.

giuliani's not testifying. all of the people that could directly link the president to an order like that aren't testifying. the white house isn't letting them. >> well, i think this -- what noah was just saying gets to the heart of it just in terms of the politics of this and the politics of what you're seeing from republicans here. and that is there is a will to land on not impeachable, not worthy of removal. that's sort of been the lesson that republican lawmakers have taken from the last three plus years is that that's where their voters are. their voters are with donald trump more than their voters are with any of them individually. they learned that as early as spring of 2016 when donald trump started winning primaries before he had a single republican lawmaker endorsing him. so they have been sort of chasing the base of the party. >> isn't this exactly what the founders were trying to guard against? they were trying to make sure that they had an elected body of officials who -- and that the electoral college was for this -- elected body of officials who were able to assess and determine facts. separate -- separate from the -- the fevers of the day.

>> yes. yes. that's literally what the point of our entire system is. to check and balance the other branches of government. the other -- the other piece of this, though. the president should not have to be on tape, videotape, confessing verbatim the exact crime that we are alleging was committed here. right? that is not -- you know, that's not necessarily in a criminal context and it's not necessary in -- as well. he should not have to explicitly say i would like to bribe you now. that is not required, nor should it be. and we should not hold him to that standard because there are plenty of people filling prisons today who were not held to that high standard and we should keep that in mind. >> the gaslighting is what i think is really difficult to swallow. senate republicans. the senate intelligence committee led by republicans found that ukraine wasn't a part of this. natasha of "politico" is reporting and i think we all

knew this. she says the republican-controlled senate intel committee thoroughly investigated that theory, the ukraine theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry. and found no evidence that ukraine waged a top-down interference campaign akin to the kremlin's efforts to help trump win in 2016. she also found that they interviewed alexandra chalupa and found that there was no there there and didn't pursue more witnesses. angus king is on the record saying he went to 20 to 30 briefings. and -- and on election interference in 2016, he never heard one word about any culpability on the part of ukraine. i mean, is this going to be the same scenario if this goes to the senate? can donald trump reliably count on -- on republican senators to behave the way that house republicans are? >> the latest polling of republican voters on the question of do you want to impeach and remove donald trump from office? the answer, yes, 4% of republicans. and that is consistent with the level of support trump has

gotten from republican voters since he became president. and i think there is ultimately like i talk about all the other issues here but politicians as a breed are very self-interested. and if their voters are -- are in one place, it's very hard to get them away from that. >> i'm not arguing with the polling. and i understand that. but there's a difference between saying i -- i'm -- i don't think it's impeachable and saying that he did nothing. and everything is -- everything is fine. all of those allegations are false. >> yeah. but republican voters want to hear the former and not the latter. they want to hear that the president did nothing wrong. also, it's unimpeachable. all of the above, they want -- this is a cultural battle. >> just like the call was perfect? >> i don't think the facts are material here. particularly, for republican voters. they're not going to turn -- i think this order exists, by the way. i don't think the president said everybody just decided to hold this aid for no reason and there's nothing on paper anywhere about it. that order exists somewhere. republicans are staking their reputations on that not existing. and it may come out in the future. but if it does, it won't change a single mind because the material facts and evidence have not been the source of what

republicans cling to. >> switch and say it's just not impeachable? it's fine. >> that's exactly what they do. i think at this point, we have to be honest about what the facts are. what they are saying on -- in this moment is we don't believe the facts and they don't matter. and that actually as -- as a citizen, again, going back to the national security piece. i think that we have to actually look at that through line in this story because the reason why this went so quickly from the story breaking to impeachment is because there's a national security threat throughout all of donald trump's abuses of power that puts everybody's lives at stake. if he is doing foreign -- if he is engaging in foreign policy for his own personal benefit, then that is putting american lives in danger. >> where does it leave the democrats? and how do they respond to this? how do they make this argument? how do they convince the public when they're not arguing the same -- they're not arguing about the same thing? >> yeah. you can at least have an honest argument about whether this happened or whether it was impeachable and not whether it happened. democrats can have an honest argument about whether this

matter, whether this merits removing the president from office. that is what this is designed to do. right? this isn't censure. this is not designed to go to the senate and die. this is about removing this president from office. over turning the 2016 election. >> it's not overturning the election. it doesn't -- impeachment does not overturn the election. that's the republican talking point. that is -- >> it is the removal of a dually elected president from office. and if you think it merits this, that is an argument we can have on its merits. >> why are you saying that committing a crime does not warrant at least a serious inquiry about whether or not that person should not be the president? >> we can debate. >> it most certainly does. that should be the grounds of the debate. >> we can debate the constitution more in seconds. steve, zerlina, noah, you guys are sticking around. excuse me. i just got something caught in my throat. and do not miss the latest episode of article two inside impeachment that steve co kornacki's podcast on all things impeachment. it's so good it will take your voice away. and on the latest episode, he's talking to alex moe, nbc capitol

hill reporter and reporter about the big week ahead. coming up, we just got the rebuttal report on impeachment. it's the latest step in their efforts to muddy the waters on the case against the president. but it will not be the last step. it's about to get even more nuts on capitol hill. i'm talking to a -- to a member of the house intelligence committee about how democrats plan to manage the mess. and later, the case that's pitting people at the pentagon against the commander in chief new and terrible details about what navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagher is accused of having done in combat. stay with us. give you the tour, i love doing it. hey jay. jay? charlotte! oh hi. he helped me set up my watch lists. oh, he's terrific. excellent tennis player. bye-bye. i recognize that voice. annie? yeah! she helped me find the right bonds for my income strategy. you're very popular around here. there's a birthday going on. karl! he took care of my 401k rollover. wow, you call a lot. yeah, well it's my money we're talking about here. joining us for karaoke later? ah, i'd love to, but people get really emotional when i sing.

help from a team that will exceed your expectations. ♪ ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart,

so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome.

go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. welcome back. as we mentioned earlier, house republicans have just put out their report rebutting any wrongdoing by the president and his dealings with ukraine in a new report. and that is not the only way republicans plan to counter the democratic-controlled impeachment hearings. republicans say they will do

everything they can to gum up the works. as the committee weighs articles of impeachment. >> they have the majority and i suspect they're going to continue to run right over us. and they seem, quite frankly, they haven't been concerned with what the rules have been too much anyway. and so we're going to have to keep fight for every bit of ground we get. >> we won't be like a speedbump. we'll be like a stop stick with spikes on it. >> joining me now, illinois democratic congressman mike quigley. he is a member of the house intelligence committee. always good to see you. the republicans have released their version

>> so how do you keep it clear? >> as much as you possibly can

to your own constituents and to opportunities like this. you know, we -- we grew fond of the expression quid pro quo. certainly latin. but i think what we try to do now is another latin phrase. it speaks for itself. the president's abuse of power speaks for itself. his own words. do me a favor. plain-speaking language. his chief of staff's own language. the testimony that is clear and consistent and corroborative of each other of the cream of our diplomatic core. that the president of the united states upheld military aid and a visit to the white house to gain personally. and i don't expect that i am going to convince the president's base. it's not my intention. i don't know that i necessarily beyond just educating the democratic base. i think it's those folks in the middle. we learned a long time ago that most elections are decided by a

single digit number of americans in the middle. i'm speaking to them and anyone else who will listen in a clear method of at least trying to let them know what the facts are. >> do you expect anything to be different in the senate if it makes it there? >> i can only hope that they'll get past the -- the fact that they believe party is more important than country. the 25th anniversary of the budapest agreement. this was a commitment that the cig s signators gave. the fact that fiona hill spoke so well of this in her testimony that providing other -- the -- the conspiracy theories that were talking about here. given that any credence of the republicans are doing is giving material aid to the russians. and it is hurting us and our own national security. all i can do is speak to as many americans as will listen as to what the facts are.

what the ramifications are. and hope that the senators will get past their party. the fact that their primaries coming up soon. and they're worried act staying in office. >> let me ask this. i'm going to read another portion from the republican report. they say the impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. the republicans wrote. the democrats are trying to impeach a dually-elected president based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with president trump's policy initiatives and processes. okay. do you believe that if you had more time and more ability to call more witnesses. maybe perhaps witnesses that had direct conversations with the president. people like mulvaney. people like bolton. people like giuliani. the people who could be forced to testify under a court order down the line that you would be

able to get more headway in this impeachment inquire just? a and potentially convince more people that it is the right move? >> i'm not sure if i can ever convince people in the core republican trump base in this new world. we grew up in a world -- >> what do we do going forward if you can't convince somebody of the facts in front of them? if you can't convince somebody it's snowing out when it's snowing, where do we go from here, congressman? does that mean that washington is fundamentally broken? how do you work with that? >> i think it's an issue of polarization. as i was saying, i think we grew up in a world when people would say, you know, i'll believe it when i see it. and now, it's the other way around. you know, i'll see it whien i believe it. and the best we can do is push back against that and remind folks of why it matters. there's nothing else left for us to do than to speak truth to the american people. and -- and hope that we can build. and i think we can. a majority that wants to move

forward and get things done. but to my republican colleagues, no one -- the president of the united states to obstruct the investigation. no one said you're going to mhod back military aid. whether they want to call it organic or not, it was wrong. i can't look and say, well, if i can't convince the president's base or the senate, i shouldn't do this. the bottom line is this was wrong. it has to be pointed out. the constitution didn't say if the senate agrees, you should move forward. or whether or not the poll on the republican base supports you or not. it says you should do the right thing. at least we can sleep at night, look ourselves in the -- in the mirror and think -- and understand that we're doing the right thing. >> congressman mike quigley. congressman, thank you very much. >> anytime. thank you. >> up next, 2020 trail mix says the top candidates are willing

to mix it up. >> can you win the nomination without winning in iowa? >> yes, but i'm going to win iowa. >> what are you telling voters about why you want to be president? >> you got an hour? i cannot wriy name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. president? president? these are real people,

not actors, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection.

if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. how did you find great-grandma's recipe? we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. woman: friction points,

those obstacles that limit a company's growth. i try to find companies that turn these challenges into opportunities. but by going out in the field, and meeting management, suppliers, competitors. in the end, it's these unique companies with creative business models that will generate value for our investors. that's why i go beyond the numbers. applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. that will generate value for our investors. now starting at $9.99. welcome back. tonight in 2020 vision, two of the democratic front-runners are campaigning in each other's territory. joe biden is in iowa on day three of what he is calling his

no-malarkey bus tour. he is campaigning at a pace we really haven't seen from him up until now as he tries to cut into the lead buttigieg has established in iowa. meanwhile, buttigieg is spending a second straight day in biden country. he is in south carolina trying to win support from black voters. a critical demographic in the democratic primary. and one that he is struggling to win over. we've got reporters traveling with both of the candidates today. mike memoli has been covering joe biden. and joins us from iowa. vaughn hillyard has been with pete buttigieg and joins us from orangeberg, south carolina. gentlemen, welcome. vaughn, i'm going to start with you. buttigieg is -- is really trying to find a way to connect with black voters. he's had a difficult couple weeks. especially, last week when that article in "the root" came out. is the reception good for him? is it warming up? do people like him?

what are you hearing? >> katy, he just stopped into the most -- they say the most blue county here in south carolina. it's also a small county. made up of primarily black voters who met pete buttigieg face to face just earlier this afternoon. and the chair of the local democrats asked him directly why do you not have strong support among the black community right now? and he said he's not naive to the fact that he said that he's the new face to this race. and he intends over the next 88 days, ahead of the south carolina primary, to go and make his case. why a mid-size city mayor reflects the voices of places like those. he said that he is going to do that. we should note we're just 88 days away from the south carolina primary. to give you an idea, pete buttigieg has lived about 14,000 days across his life. so it's a matter of whether he can make a persuasive case to folks here not only in south carolina. he is heading to alabama tomorrow and wednesday to make the case that he understands these communities. he was over at a church with reverend william barber in north

carolina yesterday. and whether he is able to insert himself into these communities, experience them, and convince voters that perhaps he hasn't been here often throughout his life but he's worth being given a shot. >> vaughn, how is he bringing in his own lived experience? i know kamala harris not attack him. she hit back pretty hard at him during the debate saying we're not going to equate each other's suffering. but is he using his lived experience to connect with people down there? >> he's trying to. and he's trying to equate his south bend experience. in fact, an african-american council woman from south bend is on this trip through the south with him. and that chairwoman here in that local county actually asked her to address the group before pete buttigieg addressed the group. asking her to explain how pete buttigieg has paid attention to the diverse community of south bend. we should note at the same time, you know, when you're looking here at the candidacy of pete buttigieg. it's one also, you know, often he -- he talks -- has -- often

it's a calming voice with the solutions here. but often when you're going to these communities, they're trying to instill in him that they have experiences that perhaps he hasn't experienced with -- within his own community. >> mike memoli, just i guess last week there was news about president obama talking about the democratic field and president obama said that he had a real -- i'm paraphrasing -- a relationship according to this report with iowa voters back in -- in 2008. and one that he doesn't have today. and he said something along-l t lines of you know who does not have that connection to iowa voters? joe biden doesn't have that connection. is he trying to reestablish that connection? make that connection? how is he trying to win over voters in a state that's so heavily favors pete buttigieg right now? >> yeah, katy. well, to use a technical term, the biden campaign right now feels much more campaigny than it has at any point this whole cycle. and it feels a lot like the campaign that i covered with joe biden for the entire two and a half months when he was the vp

nominee in 2008 and when i covered him a lot in 2012. the last three days, he's been out on a bus primarily rural towns. stopping in from time to time to diners. he was having breakfast with the former governor and his wife yesterday. he stopped at a local diner today where he had pie for lunch in emmetsberg. even at these events he's been doing, he's been spending 20, 30 minutes talking primarily about the stakes of the election. the urgency of replacing donald trump in the white house. but then he spends just as much time in one-on-one interactions with the voters who attend these. these aren't the hugest crowds in the world. but these also aren't the hugest towns in the world. he's focusing intensely on rural iowa at this point because he thinks they can do just as much in the iowa caucus here as in some larger cities like des moines. >> a campaign aide tells me they're really counting on that endorsement. they believe that could be a game exchanger. mike memoli, vaughn hillyard. thank you very much. coming up, biden and buttigieg

aren't the only candidates trying to sure up their weak spots. that's ahead. up their weak spots. that's ahead ises) ises) ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event.

don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere.

prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

he's a rhodes scholar. a successful mayor. a uniter. no. not that guy. it's cory booker. >> welcome back. steve kornacki, zerlina max well, and noah rothman are back. so corey bookman does have the same resume as pete buttigieg, except he's a senator so he's been in washington. he has that experience. and he's an african-american and he has that experience to connect with black voters. why is he not connecting with black voters? because it takes more than just being a black candidate to connect black voters. >> why is he not higher in the polls at least? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think there may be a disconnect in some of this polling and i think we're going to see as we get closer to iowa. whether or not the ground game his campaign is saying they are building in these early states, including south carolina actually, where he may gain more

traction because there is a 60ers of t60% of the electorate there is black. then you may see a higher number. >> if he can hang on to south carolina. >> impactly. b exactly. i don't know the answer but i do have some theories, right? i think there's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy in campaigning. and i can say this as someone who's sort of been on the inside and sort of watched the polling go up and down. and you watch the pundits get on tv and analyze the polling. and that is excellent. but if you are on a campaign, you should tune all of that out because your job is to wake up every single day, recruit a new volunteer. to recruit a new volunteer. and so i think that, you know, we get lost in some of the tracking polls when we should really be looking at trend lines, which is what steve does so well. >> so every campaign aide that might be watching, advisor, candidate, turn the television off right now because i'm going to ask steve about polls. don't turn it off. just walk away from the tv. leave it on. >> mute. >> steve, you've been looking at

all the polls. and i'm more interested in the state-by-state polls. what are you seeing in terms of trend lines? who has consistently been rising? what is the state of the race with the numbers? >> so two things that might be in conflict with each other. i've said to people i think in some ways, this race could be a political science experiment. so look at it this way. no one in the history of the primary process has lost competitive races, contested races in both iowa and new hampshire and then gone on to be the democratic nominee. the exception here is bill clinton '92. iowa for all intents and purposes did not happen that year. so no one has actually lost contested races in both and then gone on to win the nomination. also, not since 1988 has there been a democratic candidate who's won the nomination without getting a majority. often, a very large majority of the african-american vote. well, we see joe biden now in fourth place in iowa. it's -- margins are slim between the candidates but fourth place in iowa. fourth place in new hampshire. and running away with the

african-american vote and very far ahead in south carolina. so when i say it's the experiment, this is my question. what happens if biden takes a bath in iowa and new hampshire? what happens if he doesn't just lose? what happens if he loses badly? does that firewall in south carolina hold? do we see something we haven't seen before? a candidate who's basically able to jump start it in south carolina? or does it go away? and the other thing is what if somebody else, buttigieg, warren, sanders, anybody, wins iowa and new hampshire? that's been an unbeatable combination. four for four candidates who have done that on the democratic side. does that work this time with biden still leading in south carolina at this point? >> so would you be looking at the polls? or would you be looking at crowd size as an indicator of enthusiasm? we were talking about enthusiasm during the break. donald trump had so much enthusiasm in 2016. and maybe that wasn't represented in the polls but it was certainly represented at his rallies. they were giant. >> yeah. i -- i'm -- i'm skeptical of crowd sizes. particularly, after a -- i think it was late -- early november rally in pennsylvania with mitt

romney where i was absolutely positive that pennsylvania was going to be in play with such a great rally. and absolutely fell flat. so crowd sizes, i don't look at. polling, i do. we were talking in the break about what makes one of these campaigns really great. and there's this new york times profile on kamala harris's campaign from staffers about how the candidate was a little too twitter driven. focused on the room and by playing to the room, she wasn't playing to the folks at home. it skews left. it's much more educated and affluent. it's not representative of the electorate broadly. you know who's not playing to twitter? joe biden. remember we had early on in his campaign, we had people in his campaign saying, listen, he won't listen to us. he just runs his mouth. says whatever he wants and look where he is now and look where she is now. there's a lesson in that. >> let's talk about elizabeth warren. she's taken a bit of a nose dive in the polls and people are attributing it to her medicare for all and backing away from that. is she in a scenario where it's a double-edged sword? number one, people don't necessarily think of medicare for all as electable.

but when she backs away from it, they accuse her of being not loyal enough to the idea that she first proposed. is there no room to evolve or to moderate? >> right. i think we've sort of miscalculated how we were doing analysis on this completely because we're forgetting the fact that medicare for all is essentially the starting point for negotiations. as you're running for president, you're laying out all your plans and your vision for where you want to take the country. and yes, this is a plan that she thinks will be best-suited to provide healthcare to millions of americans who don't have it or can't afford it. but that doesn't mean that we're going oh gto get exactly the pl that she goes in the room with. that's not what happened with obama care. we all remember we started out wanting a public option. we did not get it. so perhaps the strategy is a little bit updated given recent history on trying to stake out a left flank position to go in and we trust elizabeth warren or the voters may trust elizabeth warren over the other candidates. to go in and negotiate on their

behalf with a shared set of values. i don't necessarily think it's as easy to say well, she's backed awe from medicare for all. >> is there a historical precedent for someone like warren rising, going down, coming back up? >> we've seen candidates really bottom out at this point and then come back. the most famous recent example on the democratic side was john kerry. in december 2003, the political obituary of his campaign was being written. he ended up borrowing $6 million against the value of his house in boston to get this desperation of ads up in iowa. he ended up winning iowa. winning new hampshire. winning almost everything else. >> not the presidency. >> yeah. and not the presidency. but of course it tells you something. 2004, democratic voters wanted to unite. they wanted to defeat a republican president. george w. bush who they badly wanted to get out of office. and what happened then and another question for this year. what happened then was when a clear front-runner emerged and started winning, kerry, there was a bandwagon effect. he was not the first choice of

the vast majority of democrats. he was an acceptable choice. and in a year like 2004, they were rallying. my question is does that happen again? >> that should be the poll question. who is your acceptable choice? steve, zerlina, noah. guys thank you very much. coming up, new chilling details act the war crimes case of navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagher and how it is pitting the pentagon against the commander in chief. stay with us.

man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,

serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪

we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. get new deals all day during amazon's cyber monday sale, happening now. ♪ ... needs somebody to love ♪ low prices and free shipping on millions of items. he borrowed billions donald trump failed as a businessman. and left a trail of bankruptcy and broken promises. he hasn't changed. i started a tiny investment business, and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates, i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy, and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure. and just this week, i stuck

up for three great warriors against the deep state. i have so many people say sir, i don't think you should do that. people have to be able to fight. these are great warriors. we're going take care of our warriors. and i will always stick up for our great fighters. people can sit there in air conditioned offices and complain, but you know what? it doesn't matter to me whatsoever. >> that was president trump last week in florida, praising himself for intervening in the case of navy s.e.a.l. eddie gallagh gallagher. a report by "the new york times" today reveals new and gory allegations of gallagher's actions during his deployment in iraq and earlier as well, including times when gallagher appears to relish violence. gallagher denies all the allegations of war crimes and was just acquitted by a military

jury of all but one charge against him. joining me now, one of the reporters on that piece, "new york times" pentagon correspondent and msnbc contributor helene cooper. helene, it's always good to see you. i just want to put up on our screen a few of the allegations, the stories that you uncovered about edward gallagher in the course of reporting that are in this article. he says "we don't care about living conditions. we just want to kill as many people as possible." this was surrounding him trying to get to a place where people were fighting. "i'll try and dig that knife or hatchet on someone's skull." this i believe is a text message to a friend. "no one touched him," he radioed other s.e.a.l.s. "he is mine". this is when they were able to capture one of the isis fighters. "stop worrying about it. they do a lot worse to us" once some of his underlings questioned his tactics. "got him with my hunting knife."

this in regards to the photo of him posing with the dead teenager, the dead isis captive. these are some really goer details, helene. there are some really disturbing details about his behavior. what else can you tell us about how eddie gallagher was described by his pierce? >> well, i think -- i mean one of the things that we have to remember that it was eddie gallagher's own peers, it was fellow s.e.a.l.s who turned him to begin with, and he was, as you said, he was acquitted on all of the murder charge and the attempted murder charge and everything with the exception of conduct unbecoming for posing with that photo of -- that photo with the teenager. but, you know, he took his own hunting knife with him to iraq. and by the accounts of his fellow platoon members and other s.e.a.l.s, he really wanted to get some action.

>> it sounds like they're describing a man who was out there for nothing more than blood. >> well, you can listen to what -- you can listen to what his fellow s.e.a.l.s said, but we do have to remember that he was -- he was acquitted. but the navy, the case against him was pretty convoluted to start. you had witnesses who ended up changing their testimony on the stand, and in the end, the navy ended up with only one charge sticking. >> the president got involved in this. >> yes. >> and he intervened on twitter. he intervened with some of the highest levels of the pentagon. how does the president's intervention play at the pentagon? and what does it do to the chain of command? >> katy, it's such an interesting question, because you've got to remember first that when trump came into office, the pentagon was pretty happy about it. this is kind of a constituency

that leans to the right anyway and is right in his wheel house. and he said he came into office the first year as president, loosening up a lot of the controls, the strict controls that president obama had on generals out in the field. he also put more money into the military. so the pentagon saw a lot of their budget -- they saw their budget increase. so people were happy at first. that's really turned in the last couple of years, and in particular, the last year. there are two things that have happened in the last two months. not just the eddie gallagher and the pardoning of those three -- those three people that he did a week and a half ago, which really has really alienated a lot of the senior leadership at the pentagon, but in addition to that, president trump's decision to abandon the kurds in the fight against isis two months ago when he pulled american troops out from northern syria really, really upset a lot of

the same warriors that he's talking up now, that he is protecting. >> helene cooper, helene, thank you very much for joining us, and great reporting. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. nk you >> we'll be right back

upbeat music♪ no cover-up spray here. cheaper aerosols can cover up odors in a flowery fog. but febreze air effects eliminates odors. with a 100% natural propellent. it leaves behind a pleasant scent you'll love. [ deep inhale] freshen up. don't cover up. febreze. it looks like this. for heart failure look like? ♪ the beat goes on ♪ entresto is a heart failure pill that helps improve your hearts ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. ♪la-di-la-di-dah don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb.

the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪the beat goes on yeah! [ electrical buzzing ] [ dramatic music ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott?

elliott. you came back! that is all for tonight. chuck will be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. hi there, ari. >> hey there, katy. hope you had a good

thanksgiving. >> i did indeed. did you? >> i did. a little downtime. >> a little turkey time. >> i'll see you soon around here. >> bye. >> bye-bye. thanks to everyone for joining us. i hope you had a great thanksgiving as well. and i have to tell you, we have quite a show planned tonight. a special report on some of the greatest bribery scandals ever in american history, and obviously what they mean as convictions for donald trump's impeachment case. we're going to get into all of that. also, later tonight, congresswoman ilhan omar makes her debut on "the beat." that's tonight. but to start us off, i want to show the proof that the holidays are over in washington. congressional democrats meeting behind closed door tonight to review adam schiff's impeachment report. moments ago republicans on the intel committee publicly releasing their rebuttal report. they claim trump did nothing wrong. and here is what the next phase of the impeachment probe look like. if you think of the democrats' report as a cross between a recent work of history and a tweet storm because it combines e