oval office meating in exchange for announcement of an investigation into his split corral rival. sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and our hearts full of love for america, today i am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> good morning and welcome to "am joy." well, and with that, the democrat who is perhaps the most reluctant on impeachment, speaker of the house formally amounsed the house will draft impeachment charges against donald trump. that's a weird thing in a country that can't quite bring itself to put a woman in the white house or even apparently to imagine it with trump in office, but the most powerful opponent donald trump has in this country and the biggest threat to his future is a woman. and the speaker has made it clear that she is fully in charge and that impeachment is about crimes, not feelings. it's about the unprecedented

corruption of this president who got into the white house by cheating with foreign help and who's trying to do it again. it's about upholding the constitutional separation of powers and keeping america from gaining a king. but as if on queue, the right felt the need to be heard. >> do you hate the president, mad dam speaker? >> i don't hate anybody. we don't hate anybody. not anybody in the world. >> this is about the constitution of the united states and the facts that leads to the president's violation of his oath of office and as a catholic i resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me. i don't hate anyone. >> okay. well, apparently that man forgot the rule. if you're going to come for speaker pelosi you might want to ask yourself three questions first. question one, did she call for you? if the answer is yes, please, do come forward.

if the answer is no, perhaps not such a good idea unless you're prepared to be fully gathered and the man who you saw there getting bewigged by the speaker had to be sinclair broadcasting james rosen. now, you might remember him from one of the many sexual ra hasment scandals at fox before he switched outlets and sinclair is the right wing outlet that forces its anchors to deliver identical republican talking points with your traffic and weather while hiding behind the call letters of tv stasss and rosen's talking point, that came sinclair style out of the gop. can i see a show of the hands, how many voted for donald trump in 2016. >> i don't think we're obligated to say anything about how we cast our ballots. >> a show of hands. >> i think you've made your position very clear. >> so republicans with no

defense for donald trump for attempting to use tax dollars to bribe a foreign country that would give the rest of the trump inverse juicy content to use against joe biden if he happens to be the democratic nominee and that would get russia and trump off the hook in 2016 have stooped to whining. they're only impeechling president trump because they're whining. >> an interesting tactic that republicans are using, just in your reporting is that the plan that essentially with the administration saying they're not going to participate in the impeachment trial, should it go to the senate and we're assuming it will go to the senate that they're just going to argue meanness, that everyone is mean? >> they're going to be arguing essentially that. they're going to be making the process argument and this is what they've made since the very

earliest moments since the impeachment conversation. they've claimed that democrats are somehow railroading president trump and aren't giving him a fair shake in the process and while that argument is something that doesn't have great purchase speaking broadly, and that really lacks the the kind of historical foundation that you'd hope the white house and republicans would rely on, at the same time i can tell you from my conversations with democratic leadership sources that house democratic leaders, speaker pelosi and her deputies are aware of the fact that that argument still will sound persuadable to some independent voters and part of the reason that the chairman of the house judiciary committee reached out to the white house and invited trump and invited white house lawyers to have a greater level of participation in proceedings going on in his committee is because democratic leadership wants to make clear to the american people that they're not trying to railroad is president or violate the norms that are in

place. they recognize that even when these arguments may not be meaty they can still be influential on the independent voters. >> and i think daviddes made a very good point on iter. putting children in cages iut h. calling people illegal on stolen land is about hate. impeachment is not and he's just over a teenager and he seems to know that. but to get back to the arguments that you're just talking about right there, it's not as if the white house as you reported has not been offered the opportunity to participate. they have said in this weird letter, here's a copy of it that i have here with this giant trumpy signature on it that they're not going to send a defense. they have the right to do that. they have said no, they're not going to do it. adam schiff has asked mike pence to send material that if it was

exculpatory you'd think they'd want to send it. there was testimony that was made during the schiff version of the impeachment hearings about a phone call, dumifferent phone calls between mike pence and the president of ukraine. basically schiff has said declassified and send it to us. they're saying they're not going to do it. how does the white house justify the fact they err saying it isn't fair but they're not going to participate in their own defense? >> it's a legal strategy, part of the reason or part of the overarching ride or die strategy that republicans have used as we headed into these impeachment proceedings is the strategy of essentially not giving an inch. immediately at the outset saying that this probe is a political hatchet job and illegitimate and then refusing for the white house or the state department to green light any participation whatsoever once the impeachment investigation is underway. and of course, that argument

goes hand in hand with sort of the flip side of it which is republicans and officials in the white house saying how can people take this inquiry seriously if they're not talking to people with firsthand knowledge but then how can they talk to people with firsthand knowledge if the white house won't let the people with first hand knowledge or the documents documenting the events as they played out be available to these congressional impeachment investigators? >> and just so people can understand what we're talking about. jennifer williams just remind you gis what she said about the classified information. take a listen. >> ms. williams, i want to ask you about phone call between vice president pence and president zelensky. were you on that call on september 18th? >> i was. >> and did you take notes of the call? >> yes, sir. >> is there something about that call that you think may be relevant to our investigation? >>. >> as we previously discussed with the committee, the office of the voice president has taken

the president -- >> could you move the microphone closer to you? >> as we've prooefr you eviousld with staff of the committee office of the vice president has taken the position that the september 18th call is classified. >> very briefly do they plan to call ms. williams in the portion of the senate trial. >> i'm not sure where democrats are at in putting together the list of witnesses they're going to have. it's a work in progress but i think there's a decent chance that williams and other folks that received in the chef proceedings are very much on their short list. >> let's talk about speaker pelosi because she's been reluctant on impeachment. she was the last in the door in terms of wanting to do this at all. take a listen. >> when i became speaker the first time it was overwhelming call for me to impeach president

bush on the strength of the war in iraq which i imposed. they had impeached bill clinton for personal indiscretion and misrepresenting about it. impeached him. some of these same people are saying oh, this doesn't rise to impeachment. or that right there impeaching bill clinton for being stupid in terms of something like that. >> did -- you talk about the democratic caucus and their thinking on, you know, because the speaker is reluctant, she wasn't god goading her caucus, she was trying to stop them from impeaching donald trump if possible. the fact that she is now there, she believes that the president has put our country the national security danger, is that make her more credible to the caucus with her leading it. >> to the extent that she's been working with moderates and freshman democrats who won

seats, in the process of making the decision about impeachment we know that ever since you know, the early -- the homes after the 2018 midterms those moderate freshman democrat who is got the house to flip have been concerned about how a conversation about impeachment could affect their ability to keep hold of those seats in 2020 and of course for pelosi and her allies the absolute nightmare scenario would be trump potentially getting re-elected in 2020 and those democrats losing control of the house. remember, even though by numbers of seats, democrats have a comfortable majority, many of those eat seats are one that were really hard fought and won narrowly. however, what we're seeing in addition to that many of these freshman democrats are people with national security backgrounds. max rose has a military background, so these are vulnerable freshman who when they're talking about impeachment they're speaking their own first language of national security and protekding

the homeland. for pelosi being able to get mose those members on board was mandatory. one of theern cans isn't so much a conversation about the fact that they're participating in impeachment but as an aid to one democrat put it to me, the accusation that they're only doing impeachment. that they aren't also doing the bread and butter kitchen table issues that they got elected on. that's why you'll hear pelosi and other democratic speakers talk about other legislative priorities they have, lowing the cost of prescription drugs, getting the president's trade deal with mexico and canada ratifi ratified. those are important to counter act the political challenges that this impeachment process could make for those democrats. >> correct me if i'm wrong but democrats in the house have passed over 200 bills that are sitting there waiting for mitch mcconnell to act on.

these are not being acted on by the senate. is that correct? >> that's correct. the democrats want to say they have voted for legislation not just that got through the house but that actually got through mitch mcconnell's senate and that president trump signed and that's going to be challenging. we know many of the democrats top priorities in the house are issues that mitch mcconnell has endered dead on arrival but there is a handful of topics where they might get republicans on board and that's just the top priority right now. >> and my producer is telling me it's closer to 400 bills that have been passed in the house that mitch mcconnell isn't taking action on. he did it in the obama term and he's doing it now. speaker pelosi also said that the constitution was written by people who predicated their sort of believes about what the senate would be that people would honor the constitution of the united states and that would not have predicted there would be a rogue president of the united states. they probably wouldn't be a rogue senate leader who would

ignore the constitution on this and would also ignore every bill that's right wing. thank you very much. >> coming up, much mcconnell is set to shed his image as a tortoise and play the role of the hare when it comes to the senate impeachment trial. i know thaw over going to write that in there. to write that in there.

have you spoken to a single republican colleague in the senate who is even considering voting for impeachment? >> yes. >> you have? >> yes. >> okay. would you like to name him? >> no. >> how many? >> it's a small list on one hand. and by way, i don't buy this secret ballot thing. like if there was a secret ballot there would still be only a handful of them that would vote to impeach this guy. >> you think given what we currently know like maybe -- there's what, five republicans who might vote to remove the president at max? >> i think that's probably right. >> a small list on one hand leaves senate democrats three handfuls short of the number of votes they would need to remove donald trump once he's impeached. at least 20 of the 53 senate republicans would have to dare to join presumably all or at least most of the democrats to

vote against him. let's just be clear here. do any of us really believe that 20 whole republicans would have the guts to follow the constitution and risk turning on their boss? the man that they've treated like he's their king for three years? and i mean even the ones who are serious enough people to know he's guilty, they are let's face it, all scared of trump for whatever reason. so the question is should we think about peechl as more than removal. should we see it as a jum against him but also against his political party so that voters can decide to remove any of them from office who they believe jeopardize our national security to turn the united states into russ russia's little helper. i want to go right to you on that question. you worked in the doj, so you know, if you think of this as a trial, in a sense, this is a trial at which the jury has already decided that they were going to acquit. right? you have to assume that most republicans are too scared to

vote to convict trump because even their friend, he couldn't name any of them. they'd probably be too terrified. >> i think that's right. it is a trial with a jury that is unlike any other jury in the country. i worked at the democratic senatorial campaign committee and i think that i bring that up because the bay to think of this trial is it's obviously not -- it is a legal proceeding but it is every bit as much a political proceeding as well and i think one of the things -- obviously the house impeachment managers are going to make the legal case for why donald trump should be removed from office and we don't need to go through it p it's an overwhelmingly compelling case but there's a politicsplipoliti make to susan collins and some of these senators who are up for re-election. i don't think they're the most likely votes but there's a political case to make to them if look, if you vote to acquit him based on this body of

evidence that's so overwhelming you own everything that he does after. you own it because you had a chance to remove him and you didn't do that and that's a political argument that needs to go hand in hand with the legal arguments that they would be making. >> not just owning everything he does going forward, everything he did. asking a foreign government to investigate a fellow american and trying to get them to ratify a coo coo conspiracy theory is endangering our national security. it's kremlin talk in the mouth of the president of the united states. so if you were still in the dscc would you advise democrats to say in corey gardener's case or susan collins you're responsible for risking our national security. you know that he did it. you know he's guilty. you just sat there like a bump on a log and let him off the hook. it's literally going back and making it a case against them in the election.

is that what -- do you know whether or not democrats have that in mind as a plan sf. >> i done know if they have it as a plan. i suspect they will and you can see how nervous people like corey gardener are when they're asked the question is okay for the president of the united states to pressure or even ask a foreign government to investigate one of its political rivals, you see them stammer and run for the hills rather than answer the simple question. they'll have to own the answer to that question if they vote to acquit him. and yes, his past action are the thing that are certainly up for them to decide in the senate vote but that includes everything going back to russia, if you're listening because what it is that they'll be voting on are the articles of impeachment but they taking up the pattern of donald trump asking foreign governments to intervene. doing it in 2016. then doing it on the white house south lawn when he asked ukraine

to do it again and when he asked china to do it. he's going to do it again in 2020. he's going to do everything within his powers whether it's legal or constitutional or appropriate or not he's going to use every power of the presidency to win re-election and if you voted to acquit him you're responsible for that. >> and i would think that corey gardener who's already in trouble, an argument that he allowed him to shrink the united states to a side kick of russia. there's an article where he said during the trial the senate can make all orders rules, regulations which may deem essential. that reads like a blank check. perhaps it could impose a time limit on the proceedings that would prevent a full airing against the case against trimp. you are seeing signs republicans may want to have a side trial of joe biden as their defense of

trump. how many shenanigans should we expect? the majority leader is claiming he's going to do a rules based discussion with chuck schumer but how many shenanigans should democrats expect from him? >> i think if mitch mcconnell has his way you can expect him to behave like a house republican. i think the question really is whether he can get all -- every member of his caucus or his conference to go along with him because he can only do that if he has 51 senators who will vote to hold this kind of, you know, ridiculous trial where you might see joe bide called to testify or -- so if he wants to produce that kind of trial he can do it if his caucus hang together. think it's why democrats in the senate are going to have to take this argument to the american people that there needs to be a fair trial in the senate, there

needs to be an appropriate trial so there's pressure on people like susan collins to make sure that's true. if mitt romney and susan collins, i don't have a lot of faith in her, but let's say mitt romney and three others vote against the effort to limit the fairness of this trial then he can't do it. >> would you be surprised if democrats decided to just impeach the guy and not send it to the senate and just say live with it. you're 'impeached. they could do that right? >> i would be surprised. there's a better case to make for making senators get on the record about what he did. >> and last, last, last and i'll let you go. if you put on your doj hat again for me just for a moment, if somebody was accused of bribery and they did not put on a single witness on their own behalf and essentially rested before they even made an argument what would you think about their guilt versus their innocence? >> look, some defendants do that and they are eventually acquitted but look, when the

evidence is overwhelmingly this powerful against the defendant i don't think it's the best argument you can make. >> thank you very mump. appreciate your time. coming up. jonathan turley's testimony was appropriately dogged this week. they're funny the folks writing the promows today. we'll talk about that next. e pr. we'll talk about that next surprise! a new buick? for me? to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. oh i shouldn't have but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... don't forget you this holiday season, get an s-you-v, from buick. celebrate the holidays with up to 25% below msrp for current eligible non-gm owners and lessees on most of these 20-19 buick models.

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

cologuard: colon cancer and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

sarah's last tuition payment, sent off. feeling good? oh yeah. now i'm ready to focus on my project. ♪ ♪ this is why we plan. ♪ ♪ you never cease to amaze me, maya. see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

we are living in the very period described by alexander hamilton, a period of agitated passions, i get it. you're mad. the president is mad. my republican friends are mad. my democratic friends are mad. my wife is mad. my kids are mad. even my dog seems mad and she's a golden doodle and they don't get mad. >> to mount their defense of their boss republicans rolled out jonathan turley who you may remember from 1998 when he testified that bill clinton should be impeached for lying under oath about a sexual affair. he returned in 2009 that sonya

soto mayer. he really didn't defend trump on the merits. joining me now is law professor at duke. so lets's dive right in. let's great to talk with you as usual sir. >> good morning, joy. >> good morning. lit's start with the old jonathan turley. this was in 1998. this is during the ken stahr impeachment inquire of clinton. he said, no matter how you feel about president clinton, now matter how you feel about his independent council you need both political and legal legitimacy to govern in nation. that sounds like it could be said about donald trump. he's refusing subpoenas, he's defying congress. he's saying he's above the law. can you explain this change of mind other than it's a different president? >> no, i can't.

you know, it's really striking, joy, that jonathan turley is the one witness that the republicans in the house could come up with. i think it shows how overwhelming and devastating is the case for impeachment of donald trump that they would have to bring out somebody whom they must know had testified during the clinton era that you need not have a criminal offense and that it was sufficiently serious that the president did lie about a sexual affair and encouraged others to lie, which indeed were, you know, were seriously -- this is so much more serious. so much of what he said was actually i think harmful to the president and it came from a very prolific scholar who is, if anything, eloquent, but it's -- professor turley i know and i know his scholarship but he does

have a pattern of saying i'm a democrat or i'm a liberal but i have to, because of my integrity come out for impeachment of clinton and i'm a democrat and i support the affordable care act but my integrity says it's unconstitution and i didn't support trump but i have to defend him now. it's sort of a constant refrain from professor turley. >> and he also said he's friends with bill barr which raised my eyebrows when he said that. so to dig into what he did because i was struck by the fact that he one offering a defense of donald trump. one of the things that he did during the clinton impeachment was that turley said that clinton's secret service agents should come forward and they should have to testify. but in the case of donald trump, he complained that democrats were moving too fast because they hadn't had primary witnesses come forward. he seemed to miss the fact that it's trump preventing those primary witnesses like the john

boltons coming forward. can you explain why he ignored that? >> he did mention in passing that he's criticized the blanket refusals but it's -- he -- he would really undercut the whole impeachment process by saying that a president can win if he will just assert a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way. that means that you -- there are some matters in which you don't have direct testimony but in some ways professor turley really helped the case for impeachment. he says you need to hear from bolton, the national security advisor, you need to hear from the chief of staff, mulvaney. you need to hear from the personal lawyer, giuliani, but the president has refused to allow any of those to testify and i think professor's notion that the democrats have to go through a judicial process, here's what's going to happen. the blanket refusal on the basis

it's an illegitimate inquiry. once that was rejected by the court if it were, they would start over and take that through the court system. so i think it's just a -- you know, a rope a dope strategy and congress need to stand up and say, we have an oversight responsibility and it's an impeachable offense and not to cooperate with serious charges in the process of impeachment. >> he seemed to be skeptical on what was being described that donald trump did with ukraine is bribery and our friend has written about this as well but he's just ordered other people. this is a piece that says that's just wrong. under the supreme court's 2016 unanimous decision in mcdonald v united states, the court held that the actions taken by the governor in exchange for secret gifts including sending e-mails and arranging meetings did not

amount to bribery. is he right that donald trump holding a meeting out with the president of the united states and aid is not bribery? >> it's clearly bribery. and i think that the basic mistake professor turley make social security to think that congress has to parse each element of a federal criminal statute when the authority given to congress is not justifying if they're a particular violations of the federal criminal law or to follow appellate court decisions because the most important and serious of matters would not necessary be criminal. the refusal of a president to defend the united states against a foreign military attack is nowhere in the criminal code and it is the paradigm of what would be an impeachable offense. >> my favorite part of his testimony was when he started to say you need to bring this person and this person and republicans were like cut him

off, you're not helping us. thank you for your time. >> coming up one of the skauriest proposals ever from trump's hand picked attorney general, that is next. trump's hand picked attorney general, that is next. and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction.

all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. ♪for the holidays you can't beat apprhome sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. 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. i think today american people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement

officers. and they have to start showing more than they do. the respect and support that law enforcement deserves and if communities don't give that support and respect, they may find themselves without the police protection they need. >> attorney general william barr made a not so veiled threat during an awards ceremony this week. one likely to be heard in black and brown communities that often feel disrespected by police as a warning that you better not criticize the cops, none of that black lives matter stuff or else it's a nice community you've got there. it would be a shame if something happened to it. it was an interesting week. it's good to talk with you, adam, for barr to have made those comments just this week alone we've had all of these cases of police misconduct that

have been in the news. you've got this baltimore case where officials are seeking answers after police, you know, pushed a guy down on the ground and you're choking me sir, kneeling on him, you've got the ups truck shooting which is a crazy story of a wild shootout. police are hiding behind cars with passengers in them. this ups driver who was the victim minds up getting killed in the cross fire. you've got those stories, you've got the west virginia corrections trainee story where they were doing the nazi salute and a bunch of people were suspended. it's a weird week for this attorney general to be demanding that people subordinate themselves to the police. what do you make of it all? >> i think it's an extraordinarily corrosive sentiment and i want to point out that mr. barr does not believe that he's not allowed to criticize law enforcement or that the president isn't allowed to criticize law enforcement. they do it all the time. it's only certain communities that he believes has conditional

kons nu conn nu constitutional rights. so they are not allowed to criticize the police. >> and to make your point, they're criticizing federal law enforcement and essentially accusing them of spying on the trump campaign. william barr is doing that too. the former sheriff of orange county in florida she had an op ed and she said the following p she said barr's statement is a knife in the heart of decades of pain staking work to develop bonds of trust between police and the communities they serve. it's a sacred charge. i saw a lot of people calling it. it calls like a mob rack e, a protection racket. did it sound like that to you? >> he's saying it's a nice community there, it's a shame if something happened to it. already the relationship between the communities who are protesting unfair treatment by the police, that relationship

has already resulted in difficulty in solving crimes, but what barr is really saying, he says, you don't need to worry about that. those people don't count as much as other americans. they're not real citizens so you can treat them however you want and if they don't like it too bad for them. >> barr is personally invested in a lot f ways in mass incarceration. he wrote a whole book on the need for more incarceration. he wrote the case for more incarceration, he also helped oversee a 1990 crime law that critics say escalated the war on drugs. it is a really different world having a guy like this being attorney general. a world away from the days of the obama administration. how do you think that's impacted organizations and entities like black lives matter who now aren't facing eric holder, they're facing this guy. this is the head of the justice department. >> i think it's an articulation

of what we all see as the moral principle at the heart of the trump administration is that some people are full americans and other people are not full americans and barr is just expressing that world view as you know, the person charged with enforcing law in the united states which is extraordinarily frightening. >> the racialized nature of policing is kind of obvious. do you connect that to the fact that this doj is also going back on things like consent decrees? there's been no action on trying to deal with some of these institutionally problematic police departments under trump. >> well, right. but mr. barr is working very hard to substantiate the president's complaints about federal law enforcement, but le's uninterested in how local police might violate the rights of american citizens whose rights they are ultimately charged with upholding and protecting. so you see, again, there's this two tier american citizenship going on expressed in this world view. some of us have the right to

criticize law enforcement and some of us have the right to be protected by law enforcement and others of us simply do not by virtue of who you happen to be. >> and you can add into that migrants among those deemed unable to have basic rights applied to them. thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. >> more "am joy" after the break. >> more "am joy" after the break. before we talk about tax-smart investing, what's new?

-well, audrey's expecting... -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans. alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

coming up it may or may not be a white christmas but it may be an all white debate stage. more "am joy" after the break. more "am joy" after the break. 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.

♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. 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. 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. i campaigned for president simply does not have the financial resources to continue. and the financial resources we

need to continue. i'm not a billionaire. i can't fund my own campaign. and as the campaign has gone on, it has become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. in good faith, i cannot tell you my supporters and volunteers that i have a path forward if i don't believe i do. so, to you, my supporters, my dear supporters, it is with deep regret but also with deep gratitude that i am suspending our campaign today. >> and with that announcement by senator kamala harris, the 2020 democratic field lost its own african-american woman running to unseat donald trump. adding to the irony that what started as one of the most diverse presidential fields in american history has been dominated in the polls and in fund-raisers by candidates who are white and male. other than elizabeth warren, none of the female and nonwhite candidates has managed to crack the top five. indeed, incredibly, as it stands today, the next democratic debate will feature no, zero,

people of color. harris' departure underscores a lot of issues -- the challenges that candidates of color and women have in fund-raising. the question of who gets polled to determine who's on top and who lavish media attention and who doesn't. but there's also the historic small "c" conservatism of nonwhite voters who don't tend to take a lot of chances on the critical issue of who the presidential candidates will be. black voters did not widely back reverend al sharpton or carol moseley braun when they ran for president in 2004 and didn't even favor barack obama until he proved that he could win in nearly all-white iowa. black voters tend to want to back somebody who's going to win, not somebody who gets their hopes up and then loses. and those voters who are rightly cynical after the electoral college gave them trump, they frankly don't trust this country to elect anything other than a straight white male. here's how senator cory booker, who has struggled in the single digits himself in the polls summed it up this week. >> if this debate stays what it

is right now, this 2020 election will have more billionaires than black people. it allows billionaires to be on that stage and not people that have legitimate chances to win the nomination. i believe this artificial hurdles for this debate stage right now are having the unintended consequences of having minority voices, which are essential to our party, essential to moving our party to the right policy and the right positions, are being excluded. >> joining me now, dean obeidallah, host of the show on sirius xm, alicia garza, co-founder of the black lives matter movement, lauren duka, teen vogue columnist and author "how to start a revolution," melanie campbell, dana milbank, columnist for the "washington post," glenda carr, president and ceo of higher heights for america. thank you for all being here. glenda, i have to go to you first, because higher heights endorsed senator harris, so it was invested in her candidacy. in your mind, what happened?

was it sim pretty a matter of her as a woman, as a woman of color not being able to raise money? what do you think? to what do you owe her no longer being in the race? >> i mean, as you know, there's been a ton of thought pieces. there will be a continued conversation about why she's no longer in the campaign, and i'll leave that up to others. i will share today my thoughts on it. and for me, it is, regardless of people's critiques around her resonating with voters on issues, around how she may have compiled her campaign team, frankly, her departure this week shows a light on the manmade barriers and institutional obstacles that exist for women, candidates of color, and particularly for candidates that are women of color. fund-raising, according to the research that we do with the center for american women in politics, our annual black

women, the status of black women in american politics, still shows that fund-raising is a hurdle for black women running for office. and the "e," the little "e" in this election is electability. if you go back, joy, into last year when stacey abrams was running in a primary, there was a lot of thought pieces about her electability then, so we can't do a revisionist history. people remember the general election discussion around stacey abrams and obviously the election night and the results there, but ultimately the discussion of likability and electability still is a major hurdle for black women running for office in this country. >> yeah, and you know, melanie, and i texted with you and i texted with glenda after senator harris came out of the race, and i think a lot of black women -- she was being talked about a lot more in her exit than a lot of particularly younger black voters were willing to even consider her when she was running, and i think there's a lot to that, right? i've said it in the open and believe it, black voters are

pragmatic. they're not really emotion voters. and they weren't even really willing to invest in a black candidate, since jesse jackson. after jesse jackson, there was no longer a willingness to invest. black people counted on reverend sharpton to stand up for black people in new york, but when he ran for president, they were like, i don't think he can win, i'm not going to support him. same with carol moseley braun, who would have been the first black woman since shirley chisholm to get the nomination. we respect her, but know, and until barack obama proved that white voters would accept him, the vast majority of black voters were with hillary clinton. so, are we just talking about, you know, the fact that she didn't have kamala harris, the base of black women going with her, and what is that about, if that's the case? >> well, joy, i know the poll that we did, the black women's roundtable in "essence," senator harris polled well. we also had been hosting these, our black vote had been hosting these debate watch parties every

month, and they did their own little snap poll at those debate watch parties, and she still was still high, along with senator sanders and senator booker as well as elizabeth warren. and so, for our poll, she still was doing well. i think there was, i can say that the response that even for my own self, but also the women that i've spoken with, everyone was shocked, didn't realize that she was even in the position of not being able to stay. so, i think in some ways, it was also that. i think that what's really, really critical for the democratic party to understand is not that the democratic party is not doing things that are impacting diversity when it comes to their executives, people who are a part of the leadership of the party or hiring good folks that are black women. they definitely have improved over the last two years.

it's also about the lived experiences not being on that stage and the fact that when i was in atlanta for the last debate, it wasn't for -- if it wasn't for senator harris and senator booker, the issues that impact black people, black women, would not have been front and center. we know in that same poll that racism, hate crimes, things around justice, issues are really much front and center for black folks, life-and-death issues are critical, as we've seen in our research. and so, not having her on that stage or any person of color who has lived experience. it's not just about because you're a person of color or a black person or a brown person or whatever, it's the lived experiences that will be it. if it was an asset for the democratic party to have a wide and diverse field, that that symbolism matters to folks. >> you know, and it's interesting, because just the people that i've been talking with who are really angry that she's not there, i mean, people are really upset that she's not going to be there, because i

think that's an excellent point. in atlanta, had she not critiqued the democratic party in ways that we've all heard folks critique about the democratic party, even when i've worked in democratic politics, i had that critique. six weeks out, here come the democrats up on church, let me get on the pull bit pit and talk. she said that and articulated what no one else could. >> that's right. >> but she also took heat for things no one else felt heat for. the guy who wrote the crime bill is on stage with her. when she criticized him over bussing, which was a real issue, people got mad at her, including black people. we're about to bring up we call them our sisters in law? everybody loves these prosecutors are coming for trump, the prosecutors are coming to get -- we love paul butler. but she's a prosecutor, she locks up people. that's their job! but she, klobuchar's a prosecutor. nobody said anything about that. pete buttigieg has had issues with his police department while he's running. >> yep. >> that's okay. >> like, she got hit for things that -- bernie sanders voted for the crime bill, right? but she seemed to take extra heat. so, which is it? do black -- is there a weird balance between what we want from her as a black woman and

what she can deliver and what we're overly critiquing her on? >> absolutely. the reality is that black women have to work twice as hard to get half as much, and it doesn't matter whether you're running for president or whether you're trying to get a promotion at your workplace. there are standards that are unattainable that black women are being held to in this race, and the reality is, i think one of the things i'm concerned about is that we know that 2020 is a turnout race. there's no way that we're going to beat donald trump unless we turn out every single voter. >> right. >> who cares about the future of this country. and if black women sit out this election, we're in big trouble. >> oh, doomed. >> we're in big trouble. so to me, kamala harris not being in the race is also much about the incredible influence of money in politics, the ways, the process of how people are qualifying for these debates. you've got two billionaires who are able to buy their way in. and yet, you have people like

kamala harris or cory booker or julian castro, who i absolutely adore, who can't get on the stage, and they are the people that are bringing to light the issues that a lot of people want to discuss. >> yeah. >> the issues of police violence and police brutality, the issues of how black women are faring in the economy but also in our homes and in our communities. the issues of black trans women being murdered at astronomical rates in this country. it's those candidates who are bringing these issues to the national stage for us to have a national conversation. so when they're not on the stage, it means we're not having that conversation. >> yeah. >> i'll say one last thing. in the last debate, one of the things i noticed is that even when we do things like have a panel of all women moderators that bring issues like child care to the forefront, because we're not having those conversations regularly, it was almost as if the muscle was too weak to even have a robust discussion. that is why you need people who have the lived experience of

what it means to be left out and left behind who are on that stage speaking to the voters who are standing on the sidelines right now saying, there's a ton of candidates in the race, it's hard for me to tell the difference between all these folks, and i'm not seeing myself up there. and so, i may not be interested in turning out in november or in july. >> well, you know when we were kids, we would watch the beauty contests as a kid. and my mom would be like, i'm going to watch, but as soon as all the black ladies got voted off -- >> we're done. >> and it wasn't like we could keep watching. i'm turning this off. they didn't get anywhere. when advance were williams won miss america, it was revolutionary because she got all the way to the end. >> yes, it was. >> just coming to the end keeps people engaged it's interesting how people don't see themselves and tune out. there is a woman's piece as well, that there is a message that the electability factor, it only applies to women, right? and even with elizabeth warren, there's two issues. one is raising money. it's hard for women to raise money to run at all. that's why women don't run as much. and so, you have that.

and then the extra critique of everything that they do is extra. and it's not just on the women of color, it's on all the women. >> yes. and i think, you know, we can't ignore the shape of the coverage and the comparisons in the coverage between these candidates that pushed kirsten gillibrand to suspend her campaign and pushed -- now, you look at kamala harris. you look at, i think she compares maybe best to pete buttigieg in the sense that i don't know that either of them really has a clear platform beyond beating donald trump. >> right. >> the clear difference is that kamala has the charisma of a tv prosecutor, and pete is so robotic, i'm wondering if in addition to releasing his kins kenzie contacts, we should try to have him pass an attorney test. it's absolutely amazing. and i think the forgiveness that is afforded to joe biden, introduced to america as the de facto electable candidate -- there was a piece in "the atlantic" explaining that joe biden has a stutter. we should be compassionate that he's working with this

disadvanta disadvantage. the man is stammering and yammering on the debate stage. i am not ever convinced that he is going to get to the end of a sentence, and i'm supposed to have some sort of sympathy for this disadvantage? what about the disadvantage of being a black woman in a country where you've never had a black woman be president? meanwhile, you have elizabeth warren in "the guardian" there was a piece -- is she really a progressive? >> yeah. >> right, oh, no, she just designed this whole progressive platform to try and trick you. the questions of authenticity and the standards by which the men in power are guided to the path of the presidency they've raised their hand for is undeniable and directly plays into, as we're talking about black voters' rightful decision to try and go with who can get elected. the media informs the ideas of this self-fulfilling prophecy that a white man will necessarily glide because that's the way things are, but i think that we need to be questioning that, because donald trump is president! >> right. >> and things are no longer the way they are or were.

>> yeah, no, it's -- everything seems. >> and joy -- >> yes. >> when you do electability -- when you have a discussion both on mainstream media and then in the social media chatter box that this soft primary of now saying you're not perceived azilectable or not likable, it then directly affects the ability to raise money. >> yes. >> and i think as you've already soon, as soon as senator harris suspended her campaign, there has been a quick shift, i think a quicker shift, to a senator warren in attacks in her coverage. and so, we need to be very mindful of that. if we want to ensure that we are creating a reflective democracy, that we need to call out the fact that we haven't even gotten to a vote cast or a caucus tell, and that we're allowing polls and the donor class and the soft media primaries to shape who ought to be not only on this extended debate stage, but also just the ability to be able to make it to the first ballot cast. >> and i want to get dean in here, because right.

so, there's the feedback that people get from other voters, which i think people really -- kamala's very likable, right? you know, she is very charismatic when she speaks, and there's that feedback, but that doesn't translate to the debate stage. you have to raise the cash. and a lot of regular, working folks don't have extra money to send necessarily. they're not dogmatically tied to her the way they are with let's say bernie sanders, who has that like money machine he can turn on. she didn't have that. so there's a lot to goes into it. i wonder what you think because you're on the radio talking to folks. >> sure. >> how are people reacting to the fact that this is a whitening field in a field that's very male? >> that's something that's come up even before. i had julian castro on my show about a month and a half ago and this issue came up, and he said essentially what people are saying here, electability for certain people, it's a certain profile, and there's an acute concern that donald trump has made it so -- the idea, who can beat trump is going through everyone's mind over and over and they're watching the debate going, who can beat trump, as opposed to what candidate can actually inspire the democratic base and beyond that to come out

and elect that person to win? and in julian's view, and in many who call my show, electability's a certain profile. he used the term profile. what we know that to mean is a white male. so, look, there's that struggle. and you have people like bloomberg getting on stage now being able to use his money to jump on the stage with very little vetting about -- they talk about stop-and-frisk. i'm muslim. what he did to my community here in new york was horrific. they did surveillance of us where we ate, where we prayed, where we went to school. he bragged about it. he didn't apologize, and i don't want an apology at this point. if you were in new york under bloomberg, he did not believe if you were black, brown or muslim, you had the same rights as everyone else, and i don't hear the media framing it like that and they should be framing on his policies in new york that were horrific. and god forbid he becomes president and applies that mentality nationwide. >> yeah. and dana, i'll bring you in because, again, once again, you're representing the media for us. i mean, there is a way these guys are covered, right? there was a rock star coverage

that beto o'rourke got and then the media went off him, he's not interesting anymore. buttigieg has gotten rock star treatment. there is the mckinzie thing that people haven't asked the questions before, whether you can go from a smalltown city mayor right to president. like, none of those questions are being asked. is it your perception that the media is asking a lot sharper questions of the female candidates, or ignoring them, like ask amy klobuchar. you know how much attention she's getting. >> not necessarily, joy. i think the media is guilty this time, as always, of giving a lot of weight to the polls and a lot of weight to the fund-raising numbers. but if this were about the media preferring white males, you know, a conventional white males, we'd have president bullock, we'd have president inslee, we'd have president hickenlooper, president delaney, we'd have president de blasio, bennett, and even steyer, for all his billions, is going

nowhere, and i'd be astonished if mike bloomberg goes anywhere either. on the contrary, it is -- we still have klobuchar. my personal favorite in the race, with a viable possibility. and warren with a very real possibility still. so, i think it's more a reflection of the conventional -- if you're doing well in the polls, you're going to get a lot of good coverage. if you're not, you're not going to. buttigieg, i think he's certainly gotten better coverage than say joe biden, who's been pounced on from the very beginning of people, you know, me included, saying, you know, watching him try to get through a speech or debate is like watching a toddler try to cross a highway. i don't think he's gotten much of an easy time of it either. >> yeah. lauren. >> i think it's absurd to say that we would have a president hickenlooper or bennett. the hodgepodge of nameless white men who felt the need to raise their hand and enter this race is -- it's just not a reasonable thing to bring up, and i think

the comparison with pete buttigieg, maybe we brought up julian castro. he speaks with stunning clarity on immigration and has critical experience in the sector of housing. he is almost largely ignored, while pete enjoys viral moments for speaking norwegian. then we bring up mayor bloomberg. he did things that he can apologize to one black church and forget the legacy of stop-and-frisk, while telling us that anyone is welcome to enter the race, and voters are deciding the shape of things. he really wants to convince us that we have an open opportunity electoral process when he just paid to enter the race. >> yeah. i can see you trying to get in. >> it's just, it's a mess. and i think when we talk about polls, we just have to continue to be very careful. >> yeah. >> it's really about who you're talking to. >> yeah. >> and if you're talking to older white voters, then of course their preferences are going to be reflected in certain ways. but if you're talking to, you know, younger black voters or voters of color who are between the ages of 25 and 45, i think

you're actually going to see different results. and so, again, part of the issue here, i think, is that, essentially, the american people who are incredibly diverse, who want to see change in the white house and all the way down and who are increasingly cynical about how politics is functioning in this country are the people who are losing out from all of this mess. >> you're worried that voters will turn out? >> they could, but we didn't talk about the dnc set up these rules. >> yeah. >> these are harder than the republicans did in 2015 for the december debate. they should make it easier in january. we need authentic voice on the stage. >> quickly, we have to go, but quickly, is the dnc even thinking about changing the rules and changing the state order? >> well, they made a whole lot of changes last time because of the problems with bernie sanders and hillary clinton. i think this, in turn, is backfiring on them as well because we see a lot of strong democratic candidates out and then we see tulsi gabbard on the

cusp of being in this debate, even though she's essentially running against the democratic party. >> thursday is the deadline. as of then, it will be all white. elizabeth warren the only female. are you concerned about black turnout if, in fact, black voters are presented with no people of color on that ticket? >> yes. and on this next debate, i would say to all the candidates who ever left, you have to bring your "a" game and make sure that you're speaking to the issues of black women and black folks and people of color and the diversity that that stage represents, and be really clear that that was an asset for the party it was not a deficit. >> indeed. i should mention, amy klobuchar is also in the debate. dean, elise, melanie, dana and glenda, we'll have you back. thank you. 17 days before christmas and donald trump is about to put a big lump of coal in the stockings of 700,000 americans. hoe, hoe, hoe. that's next. 700,000 americans hoe, hoe, hoe. that's next. we made usaa insurance for members like martin.

an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99.

[ dramatic music ]ing ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back!

what do you make of this rule change to basically make people go hungry? >> it's stupid. it's cruel. it's exactly the wrong direction. we need to actually be providing more opportunity for people to get the food that they need. >> well, the trump administration has finalized a rule that will throw nearly 700,000 americans off of food

stamps. the benefits program also known as s.n.a.p. the new rule makes it harder for states to wave s.n.a.p.'s work requirements in areas with high unemployment. the administration says the move will encourage self-sufficiency, because you know, making people go hungry will somehow get them jobs. joining me now, the chairman of the campaign. bishop barber, we know this will impact 680,000 people who lose their benefits. it's a $5.8 billion reduction in spending over the next five years, which doesn't amount to a whole lot of money when compared to the budget. it's going to affect 39.7 million people received s.n.a.p. benefits in 2018. it was $64.9 billion in government spending and the average monthly benefit is only $255. it's almost no money in the actual budget, but it's really going to hurt people. what do you make of this policy? >> it's another policy rooted in the lies of extremism, that somehow, if you take food away from people that need it, that

you're going to actually help them. you know, this is why we need a full debate on poverty and the issues of poverty and low wealth. i believe we would do a whole lot better with what we're talk being now with candidates and polling if we would deal with these issues. trump believes in feeding the greedy and taking from the needy. he believes in gorging the wealthy with tax cuts they don't need and taking from the poor what they do need. but look at the pattern. he wants to take health care from the sick, block living wages from the working poor, he wants to keep the environment dirty and warmed up, he wants to keep brown children in cages and dying, and now wants to take food from the hungry. this is -- but we need to have this debate about what's going on and with his allies. this is criminal. this is a form of political violence. 700,000 people being taken off s.n.a.p. in a country, joy, where 250,000 people die every year from poverty and low

wealth. 600 people a day. 600 people a day. and this is why we can't just discuss this now and then. it needs to be at the center of our political discourse. this is moral crisis, it's wrong, and it's incredibly in some senses the bible would say evil, you know. those who rob the poor of their rights. the scripture says it is a form of evil injustice. >> well, you know, the justification for this coming out of the agricultural secretary -- and there's an irony to him being the one who says -- he says we need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an infinitely giving hand. this is from the same department of the federal government that is handing out money, what they're calling trump bucks, to farmers who donald trump is bankrupting with his tariffs, and they're handing them over, $16 billion in straight-up welfare, bailouts. what do you make of the agriculture department, which administers both things, the bailout for the farmers and cutting food out of the mouths

and taking it out of the mouths of children? >> well where that rationale comes from, this is the same group that says when corporate crooks break their banks, you give them money and lift them up, but when poor people need food, you take it from them, and somehow, that makes -- it's so illogical. but again, why are we pitting farmers against poor folk when farmers are poor? in the poor people's campaign, we know farmers. we are bringing together farmers from the midwest and poor folk from the delta and others. people are hurting. and what we should be doing is, in fact, strengthening the programs to help those who are poor and those who are hungry that are living in food deserts, that are living in places of low wages, places of high unemployment, despite what the overall number says, people that can't often get 20 hours of work consistently, but instead, we're taking from them. and then there's another question, joy -- where is this money being directed? you always have to look

underneath what trump and his allies are doing. if they're trying to cut, you know, the original goal was over $5 billion, and they want to cut more than that, but where are they redirecting those dollars? are they trying to cut from the poor so they can build the wall? are they trying to cut from the poor so they can buy more military weapons? where are they trying to cut from the poor so they can give more taxes to the greedy? those are the critical questions that we ought to be debating in this country in a serious way. >> absolutely. i mean, after they gave $1 trillion in just tax cut money, corporate cash to corporations and rich people. we also should note that after that tax cut, the u.s. was pushed way down on the list in terms of the taxation of our wealthy versus the rest of the world, and we don't give nearly as much to save people from poverty as other countries. there's a racialized kind of attitude -- >> and joy? >> yeah, sure. >> and think about this, we have

33 million people on s.n.a.p. we have 81% of that 33 million -- 27 million people are disabled folk, are over 65, are children, are persons that work, try to work 20 hours a week. and we've not had one debate yet in this country, political debate at the presidential level, on the issue of poverty that's impacting 140 million people. >> yep. >> we have to change this narrative or we actually play into the deception of trump and his allies. >> and i was going to say that there's a racialized attitude towards these programs, where people assume this is black and brown people who they think are taking their money away, but the majority of people on these programs are white also. so they're hurting one of their own. >> white women and children. >> white women and children. and if you have a car that's worth more than $2,400, you lose your benefits. that kind of absurdity. quickly, bishop barber, you asked nine of the candidates -- i was with you at the poor people's campaign event that you

did, where you asked folks, asked democrats, would they commit to a date specifically on poverty. have you heard back from the dnc as to whether they will host such a debate? >> we have not yet heard, and we're still pushing. we're still asking candidates. because one of the problems we have -- i'm listening to all this conversation about who polls and what not. well, the polling is impacting by what you deal with. the fact of the matter is, years ago, if you had polled the end of degradation, it wouldn't have won, if you had polled the end women's suffering -- so, what i'm saying is how are we ignoring 140 million people who are poor and low wealth and not having a debate? maybe the problem with the polls is we're not raising the irnz that would expand the electorate, rather than keep it narrow. >> dnc, i'm sure you could get in touch with bishop william barber. thank you for your time. appreciate it. >> thank you. god bless. >> thank you. more "a.m. joy" after the break. . >> thank you more "a.m. joy" after the break. cologuard: colon cancer screening for people 50

and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family.

i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein,

lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. we're learning disturbing, new details about a 16-year-old guatemalan migrant who died in u.s. custody. in may, carlos vasquez was diagnosed with the flu and 103-degree fever at the federal processing center in mccallan,

texas. a nurse practitioner recommended he be evaluated and hospitaled, if necessary. instead, carlos was moved to a cell and quarantined at a nearby border patrol station. by the next morning, he was dead. nbc has obtained video of carlos' final hours. but we're not showing the images in respect to the wishes of his family. but per propublica, which first obtained the video, it shows carlos writhing for 25 minutes on the floor and a concrete bench before staggering to a toilet and collapsing on the floor where he remained for the next 4 1/2 hours. according to propublica, border patrol records indicate that an agent checked on carlos at least three times, but it's unclear if those checks actually ever happened or what they entailed, if they did. the cpb says one of the agents found carlos unresponsive. however, the video shows that it was actually carlos' cellmate who found him. a border patrol spokesman said, "while we cannot discuss specific information or details of this investigation, we can tell you that the department of

homeland security and this agency are looking into all aspects of this case to ensure all procedures were followed." mm-hmm, okay. carlos is the sixth migrant child to die in u.s. custody since donald trump took office, according to "the new york times," a grim reminder of trump's ugly immigration policies and what promises to be the single biggest legacy of his presidency, even taking impeachment into account, and that would be cruelty, particularly cruelty toward migrant children. we'll be right back. ly cruelty migrant children we'll be right back. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver

performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ but i did pick clarity by knowing i have a treatment that goes right at it. discover piqray, a treatment that specifically targets pik3ca mutations in hr+, her2- mbc. piqray is taken with fulvestrant after progression on hormone therapy and helps people live longer without disease progression.

do not take piqray if you've had severe allergic reactions to it or any of its ingredients. piqray can cause serious side effects including severe allergic and skin reactions, high blood sugar levels and diarrhea that are common and can be severe, and pneumonitis. tell your doctor right away if you have symptoms of severe allergic reactions or high blood sugar while taking piqray. your doctor will monitor your blood sugar before and during treatment, and more often if you have type 2 diabetes. before starting, tell your doctor if you have a history of diabetes, skin reactions, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. common side effects include rash, nausea, tiredness, weakness decreased appetite, mouth sores, vomiting, weight loss, hair loss, and changes in some blood tests. ask your doctor about piqray.

why is rudy over there now, chris? because they're all corrupt. this whole trump team is corrupt. that's the bottom line. i think rudy giuliani ultimately ends up in jail for fara violations or some other type of violation related to disclosure and receiving foreign money. >> facing such serious legal consequences, you'd think donald trump's personal and tv lawyer, rudy giuliani, would opt to lay low, maybe even hide out at mar-a-lago if he needed a change of scenery. but no. instead, he did what any rational person eraiding national scrutiny would do, he went to europe to continue the president's dirty work, interviewing iranian officials for his quote/unquote investigation into the bidens. that's according it a source on the trip. who he met with yuri let senko, viktor shokin and constantin kulik, who have all provided claims about joe biden and his son. joining us, joyce vance and maya

wiley, and barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney, all msnbc contributors. very quickly, and i'll start with you first on this, barbara. these people that giuliani met with, yuri lit senko met with giuliani in new york where he made comments about burisma. viktor shokin claims biden stopped him from investigating burisma and constantin kulik has compiled a 17-page dossier in english pushing the conspiracy theory. he's going to interview them. what do you make of that? >> yeah, i saw someone on twitter calling this the crime that keeps on criming. [ laughter ] you know, as my husband says to our children, when you find yourself in a hole, don't keep digging. >> yeah. >> it seems to me that he's just making things worse by continuing to associate with the very people who has gotten him into trouble. you know, there are allegations that he may have violated the

foreign agents registration act. and if he continues to work with these people, you know, still looking for dirt on biden, and he's also tweeted that this is all about his service for the president. >> yeah. >> these things really can come back to haunt the president. and things he says on twitter, things he says publicly can be used against him in court. so, i think that all of this activity continues to make things worse for him and the president. >> in the kid analogy, this would be like a kid getting caught in the cookie jar and then scrubbing cookies all over their face. doing the opposite. here's giuliani explaining what he's doing, on wjla "america this week." >> what's the ukraine trip all about? >> well, i can't really describe it. i can't even confirm it. all i can tell you is that i am doing today, all day and all night, maybe, what i have been doing for a year and a half. i'm representing my client. >> i mean, okay, so, let me -- i

don't really know how to explain this, but is it legitimate -- well, actually, you're a defense attorney, not a prosecutor, were you a defense attorney? i want to get somebody who can explain this as a defense attorney strategy. does it make sense for the defense attorney to say, my client is being accused of something he didn't do, so i am myself going to investigate? does that make sense? i'll start with you, joyce, does that make sense? can you do that? >> it would make sense if this was a criminal trial with a private citizen, but this is the president of the united states. and if there's something going on here, you would think that official policy issues would be handled through official channels. where's secretary pompeo as all of this is going on? and here's what's always been the kicker for me, joy. if there are allegations that biden committed misconduct and if you really believe that the ukrainians are fundamentally corrupt, why would you ask the ukrainians to do the investigation? you would go to the fbi. >> doesn't make any sense. because what they seem to be trying to do, maya, is trying to say, to prove donald trump is

innocent by somehow proving that the bidens did something wrong. that seems to also be the coming impeachment defense, by the way, that their defense is not going to be anything about donald trump. it's just going to be to try to sully the bidens. >> well, i will be the defense attorney in this case -- >> please. >> i have defended someone once. so, what i will say is that i understand the very twisted logic of this. >> okay. >> i do think it's twisted, so, but i think the logic is the republicans are arguing, as they did in their report, in their prebuttal report in the intelligence committee, that the president was legitimately concerned about corruption. so, now, so, what giuliani is saying, here's the corruption he was worried about. >> right. >> the problem is, exactly as joyce said, that if the problem is a country that is corrupt, then what you do is pay attention to the corruption of that country. in this instance, rudy giuliani is literally meeting with people

accused of participating in that corruption that they say they're concerned about, notwithstanding all of the other evidence that shows that donald trump was not expressing, stating, or doing anything else around corruption, including that, including that. he's the administration that said he wanted to give this aid to ukraine, even though it was public knowledge that all this corruption was a part of its history. >> right. >> and never even mentioning corruption in either of his calls with president disciplinesky. >> right. >> so, tons of evidence that show how twisted it is to argue that us going after our political enemies on conspiracy theories that the senate intelligence committee itself could not find evidence of -- >> yeah. >> -- is somehow a defense when it doesn't suggest they care about corruption. >> here's the thing, so first of all, none of the calls they put out mention the word corruption at all. the reason the defense seems to me as a lay person to not make

sense is that, first of all, it's a new president. so are they saying this guy -- he just got in on may. he's corrupt already? and number two, what donald trump is attempting to do is corrupt him, essentially saying, if you want the money, i'm going to need you to do something to get the money. you can't prove somebody is corrupt by trying to corrupt them, right? >> yeah, and i think a couple of things that belie what president trump is doing -- remember the testimony of david holmes, the state department official, and of gordon sondland, who said it wasn't an actual investigation that president trump wanted -- >> an announcement, yeah. >> he just wanted an announcement of an investigation. >> right. >> because that is what he needs as a talking point to win the election. and so, he doesn't care about actual investigations. he doesn't care about actual corruption. and as you point out, joy, one of the real harms not only to our national security by president trump's conduct, but our ability to execute our foreign policy in the world as a fighter of corruption. one of the things we do, our justice department does, is it teaches other countries,

emerging democracies, about the rule of law. and here we are corrupting. we've lost all credibility for our ability to hold ourselves out as the leader and teacher of how to do things right. >> so we know there's going to be an announcement. impeachment is going to be official now. what do you make -- and i'll start with you on this, joyce -- what do you make of the fact that the trump team plans to not mount a defense? it looks like from the witness list so far, they're just going to try to go after the bidens and drag the whistle-blower out in public, but not mounting a defense. do they need to mount a defense? >> i don't think they have a defense to mount, that's the problem, right? the facts are not on their side, the law's not on their side. we have heard no substantive defense whatsoever from the president. they say oh, no, the president has defenses, but they're actually paper-thin or non-existent. so this notion that they won't participate in the process preserves their only possible argument. that argument is that the process is corrupt, the process is unfair. it's a witch hunt.

and you know, it's an irony, and perhaps to get people to participate in the articles of impeachment or obstruction of just. to the extent it's been imperfect it because as the president keeps witnesses from coming forward, won't turn over documents. the process the democrats are using is the same republicans were using. >> they want jury nullification. before we go, would it surprise you if mitch mcconnell does a motion to dismiss and just tries to clean it off so his members don't have to vote? >> it would surprise me. >> it would? >> yes, i think it would. i think they, at least from my perspective and from some of the things that we've been hearing, i think they know they have to do something credible. i think they understand they have to look different from the house as a chamber. >> good luck with that. >> that doesn't mean that there won't be lots of things that we think are not giving it a fail trial. but i think that's -- i think i would be a little bit surprised by that, but not because i don't think he won't try to make it the most favorable trial he can for donald trump. >> depending how they set it up,

a lot of folks who are pretty upset that kamala harris is not in the race are going to get to see a whole lot of people seeing kamala harris being kamala harris on the dais because she will be on the jury. get your popcorn out. maya wiley, barbara mcquade, thank you. ranking member of the house intelligence committee can't remember who he talked to on the phone. that's next. who he talked to oe phone. that's next. if you're on medicare, remember, the annual enrollment period is here. the time to choose your medicare coverage... begins october 15th and ends december 7th. so call unitedhealthcare and take advantage of a wide range of plans with a variety of benefits... including an aarp medicare advantage plan from unitedhealthcare. it can combine medicare parts a and b,

which is your hospital and doctor coverage... with part d prescription drug coverage, and more, all in one simple plan... for a low monthly premium or in some areas, no plan premium at all. take advantage of primary care doctor visits... preventive dental care and an eye exam... all for a $0 copay. plus, earn rewards for completing other preventive care activities, like flu shots and annual physicals. you could also get over $150 in free health and wellness products. so now's the time to look at unitedhealthcare's variety of plans, and let us help find the one that works best for you. also ask about our ppo plans that let you see any doctor who accepts medicare, without a referral. and take advantage of in-network costs, at home or traveling, when you see doctors in the unitedhealthcare medicare national network. with many of our medicare advantage plans, you'll have $0 copays on the most common prescriptions. in fact, last year our medicare advantage plan members

saved an average of over $6,500. and with renew active, enjoy a free gym membership and up to $115 in rewards for staying active. you can count on our guidance and support to help you get the most out of your plan. we can also help you schedule appointments or find a specialist. annual enrollment ends december 7th. start taking advantage of all the benefits... of the only medicare advantage plans with the aarp name. we make it easy to enroll, too. so call unitedhealthcare or go online today. [sfx: mnemonic] 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

maybe they have the recordings of my phone calls with rudy giuliani. they're welcome to play them, because everything i spoke with rudy giuliani about is nothing that i wouldn't care if the american people found out. >> did you ever talk to this guy, les parnas, or whatever his name is? >> you know, it's possible, but i haven't gone through all of my phone records. i don't really recall that name. i remember the name now because he's been indicted. i'll go back and check all my records, but it seems very unlikely that i would be taking calls from random people. >> yeah, i mean, it's so hard for me to keep frtrack of all t levs that i know, too. despite his fuy recollection, a house intelligence report revealed nunes had undisclosed phone calls with rudy giuliani and his ukrainian business associate. funny that sean hannity can't

remember how to pronounce his name. it's lev partnernparnas, who's indicted on campaign finance charges. according to records, parnas called nunes and had an 8 1/2-minute conversation. two days later, nunes and rudy giuliani reportedly called one another, but when he returned to fox news, he was still unable to recall whew spoken with a lev parnas. >> what did you discuss with lev parnas? >> well, i don't even know because i don't -- i've never met parnas, and like i filed in federal court. so, it's a great question, because many people want to know, including myself. so -- >> so you never had any phone conversation with him? >> we have not been able to confirm that yet. >> i mean, you don't think you would remember if you had a conversation? >> you have to remember -- you have to remember, we are the house intelligence committee oversight committee, okay? so, we get calls from people every day. >> okay. >> all walks of life. i get them from all over the world, allies and people that

aren't our allies. in this case, i just don't know. >> joining me now is frank figlusi, msnbc analyst and former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi. and frank, it's good to talk to you. you know who does seem to remember what they spoke to devin nunes about? lev parnas. these are not like unmemorable people. lev and egor are two of the characters easy to remember. nunes claims he doesn't remember. is he at risk that lev will remember and will eventually come out with it? >> oh, it's more than just a risk. it's a reality. i mean, lev parnas has said he's prepared to testify as to his conversations. and so, it takes a lot of chutzpah, as they say, for devin nunes to say things that really sound disingenuous. you know, if you took the two clips you played, joy, and you played them at fbi academy quantico to a class that's studying veracity and truth-telling, i would tell you that all of the bells and

whistles would go off, because devin nunes is saying everything from, i haven't checked my records yet, i'd like to know what i said. i get calls from a lot of people. i haven't confirmed that i spoke with him. he said everything but, nope, it didn't happen. >> yeah. >> and to me, that says it absolutely happened. and the problem with that is, for him, is if you're investigating this, you have gold. you have two things that i consider to be investigative gold. you've got phone records that tell you time, location, that kind of thing, and duration of call. and then you've got somebody like lev parnas who's willing to fill in the content potentially of those calls. you put those two things together and devin nunes has got some real explanations to provide. >> well, especially since lev parnas has an incentive to cooperate because he's facing criminal charges himself, and cooperation is one of the ways that you help yourself out when you're facing those kinds of charges. what do you make of the fact that the ranking member on the house intelligence committee, who participated in the adam schiff portion of the impeachment hearings, never said

anything to anybody about the fact that he was not just the guy who's sitting on the dais, he was involved in some way with one of the players? >> well, it says a lot on two levels. it says a lot about devin nunes as an individual, his ethics, his integrity, and what he's all about. and then on a larger level, it's just a huge, ironic development that we're hearing all of this about -- the republicans are defending allegations that the president lacks integrity and ethics, and they're sitting there overseeing this and they're not recusing themselves, and they're not saying anything about their colleague, devin nunes. so, you know, the hypocrisy is loud and clear here. and eventually when the dust clears, joy, i wouldn't be surprised if ethics investigations and perhaps even criminal investigations really point the finger at nunes as someone who should have recused himself and is much deeper into this than we know now. >> he's been weirdly involved for a long time, like sneaky

meetings with the white house and being their advocate in this weirdly aggressive way. now we find out he's on the phone with lev parnas. there's a lot. if you were in counter a intel and dealing with a case like this, would you want the fbi to interview nunes? >> well, i wouldn't be surprised, joy. and again, i have no particular knowledge on this. i want to be sure to say that. but when you look at this new evidence revolving around phone calls, then you look at devin nunes' travels and who he's associating with and the fact that he's kind of back-channel, back-door information to the white house that he's gleaning from committees in the past, i wouldn't be surprised if there already isn't some inquiry into his activities related to foreign contacts. and i think this is only going to continue to grow. >> and we should note that the democratic coalition and outside group are filing ethics charges. those are pending and we'll see how they go. speaking of phone calls, donald trump attempting to refute a cnn story that he was still using --

he uses a personal cell phone to talk with his friend, vladimir putin, and that he took steps to make sure that his calls couldn't be recorded or monitored by insisting on using that phone. here's his defense of himself, saying that that's not true. and if folks will go on the original tweet and scroll down to the bottom left of it -- i think it got cut off in our image there -- he tweeted that from an iphone. so, he's saying he didn't use a personal phone and tweets his defense from an iphone. have you ever heard of government employees being issued government-issued iphones? >> well, actually, i have. i have. the question is the degree to which they've been retrofitted to be hardened. and that's actually what we're hearing. he might have two phones, by the way. but yeah, the answer is yes, i have. but here's the deal. i don't want people to come out and say, oh, well, i guess he's fixed the problem on secure communications. he has not. by all accounts, what he's done is he's compromised by taking an

iphone from the government, and what they do is they wipe it periodically, they check it for maleware and attacks. they harden it and make it harder to attack, but he has not bought into the program of an encrypted phone. he's not using hardline, secure telecommunications units. he's not doing that, and that's what guarantees, almost, that you won't be intercepted by a foreign power. what he's done here is a band-aid approach, and for him to say it's all fake, i'm using a government-issued iphone, that does not cut it. and the operational concerns around that, that foreign powers already have his phone signature, already have got him when he's traveled with it and are listening into his most personal conversations is astounding. and he's got to switch over to the hardened lines. and why is he not doing that? what we're hearing is he gets upset when he uses official phone lines that a record is created, that white house phone logs are created, that he's got to explain the content of calls to people. he doesn't like that.

he's still riding under the rad radar. >> and it's really strange, this insistence on having secret phone calls with a foreign power. it is weird. frank figiliussi, great talking with you. and before we go to break, we want to welcome the newest member of our "a.m. joy" family. cuteness coming right now. superstar producer kai ma gave birth on monday to a beautiful baby boy. cody june weighed in at 7 pounds, 13.2 ounces. congratulations to kai and her wonderful husband, oliver. we cannot wait to meet adorable little cody! cuteness! so happy. one more baby is coming on the way, so we love it. congratulations, kai! more "a.m. joy" after the break. t congratulations, kai more "a.m. joy" after the break. that's what i'm talkin' about. and a score of two under par is...? (daughter) big birdie! (dad) no, it's not that, it's uh... (rickie) turkey vulture! (dad) rickie fowler, i'm sorry, what...? (rickie) turkey vulture. (dad) oh! thats a turkey-oh!

all right, lets go. i'll follow you. go, go, go- go! (burke) otherwise known as sand trap scavengers. seen it, covered it. september twenty-ninth, twenty-seventeen. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

that is our show for today. "a.m. joy" will be back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. up next, alex witt has the latest. hello! it's good to be back with you. >> hello. i'm so glad that you're here. can i say you look stunning today or is that so superficial? >> bring it. yes. >> it is what it is. a good day to all of you here at 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." we have breaking news this hour, the new details in that pensacola mass shooting, but still critical questions remain about the suspect and why he did it. more breaking news. action on capitol hill today. the house judiciary committee