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 working through this weekend reportedly on articles of impeachment. for the first time this week, we've heard from one of the president's twitter targets. how the barrage of tweets have changed her life. an inside look. two house keepers who worked at one of the president's golf courses talk about their encounters with him. stories to share with you. but topping the news, new details about the mass shooting investigation in pensacola, florida. the gunman a saudi national had been training at that base. let's go to nbc's blayne alexander who continues to follow this story from pensacola for us. blai blayne, who whom has the fbi spoken to in their investigation? >> reporter: well, alex, that's certainly one of the questions we'll be asking them when we expect to hear from officials, possibly within the next hour, hopefully at some point today. we're standing by at the county public safety office to get more information and find out exactly

where fbi officials are in what they already say is going to be a very lengthy and very involved investigation. so, here's what we know. the last briefing we received was late last night. we know that throughout the night agents were working last night into today to process what they're calling a very large crime scene there on base. they say that they have to go and get a lot of evidence. and to that point, the base is now only partially open. we're told that only essential personnel along with those who actually live on base are ala allowed on throughout the weekend. otherwise, it's restricted access. so that's certainly one thing we'll be asking today. another thing -- we've got a number of questions for officials, and perhaps top of them are going to be what else do we know about this shooter? now, we know that sources have confirmed to us the name. again, fbi officials are not officially releasing his name, but sources have told nbc his name and that he is -- we do know that he is a saudi national. we also are going to ask about a bit of reporting from my

colleague, ken dilanian. his sources are telling him that a number of, he says the shooter's saudi classmates were led away by officials near the scene where that happened. so don't know the details of that, but certainly something we're going to be asking about as well. and another big question, alex, that's top of mind is about the weapon itself. one, how did he come in possession of that gun? we know that he did use a handgun in that attack. but the other question, of course, is how did he get it onto base? know weapons are not allowed, handguns are not allowed. so the big questions are what types of security measures were in place and how was he able to get that handgun on to base, alex? >> yeah, that is a huge question and we'll get answers to that, no doubt, with your help. blayne alexander, thank you for that. we have breaking news from washington this hour. the house judiciary committee just minutes ago releasing its report outlining the constitutional grounds for impeachment. essentially what was presented at wednesday's judiciary hearing. committee members are working through the weekend to prepare for monday's hearing. that's where counsel on both sides of the aisle will give

details from the intelligence committee's investigation as the members decide what specific charges to bring against the president. speaking with my colleague, david gura earlier, congressman jamie raskin said they have to get the balance just right. >> i want us to tell a comprehensive narrative about the president's high crimes and misdemeanors. and i want us to be very precise and focused in our identification of the high crimes and misdemeanors, but i think that all of the surrounding conduct in the events and the actions need to be in there. >> to the white house now. nbc's kelly o'donnell at her post for us. kelle, a couple questions for you. first off, what do we know about just this release, about the last ten minutes or so, about this judiciary committee report? >> reporter: this is in a sense, alex, a way for the committee to put almost in a book form a summary of the hearing they conducted with the four

professors who brought in their academic expertise on what does the constitution say about impeachment. so, this is a guide that pulls together their knowledge, their experience, the case law, and so forth, authored by the committee staff to have sort of a blueprint for what are the legal sort of pathways for lawmakers to consider when it goes beyond just the judiciary committee, and ultimately, it's all the members of the house of representatives who will cast a vote. it's also available to the public on the committee's website for people who are interested in finding out what is the summary of the legal grounding in the constitution for impeachment. so, that's what judiciary's done today. they are working through the weekend behind the scenes preparing for monday's hearing, which will also sort of bring to life these issues, presenting the evidence that has been gathered by democrats in the two committees thus far, both intelligence and judiciary, as a way to get closer to that point where they draft the specific

articles of impeachment, which will then be considered by the committee and then fully all of the lawmakers in the house of representatives. so, today is another important data point in this process where they combine the expertise, knowledge, evidence and information into a readable form which the public can see as well as available for the use of lawmakers. on the white house side, what we have seen most recently is a letter from the white house counsel, pat cipollone, to chairman nadler of the judiciary committee that basically says the white house will take a pass on the committee's invitation to participate. one of the concerns that's been expressed by white house officials is they argue that it has been inherently unfair from the beginning to the president that the control democrats have in that committee in choosing witnesses and in the process has not made it a fair process, and that cannot be fixed in the final inning, so to speak. so, the white house counsel ending this letter to nadler, saying that they believe that the committee is overreached,

that the committee has been unjust, unfair, and would be an abuse of power among democrats if they do articles of impeachment at this point. the president also took to twitter, as he so often does, and challenged jerry nadler directly, saying that he has not had a shred of evidence presented before his committee, and yet, they're moving forward. by that, what the president's referring to is all of the fact witness evidence happened in the intelligence committee. and so far, only in judiciary we've heard from the academic experts, three invited by democrats, one invited by republicans on the committee. and so, the committee itself has not considered the evidence. and that's part of what the president and the white house counsel have been pushing back about. white house officials also say that speaker pelosi announced her intention to move forward toward articles of impeachment before the deadline given to the white house to respond and that they argue that that means this was a predetermined outcome, that they would be going for full articles of impeachment, regardless of whether the

president appeared through counsel or tried to have some kind of defense in the committee. so, that's sort of where things stand this weekend. we've come to see that in the impeachment season, weekends are no break from the work. and so, there are efforts happening on capitol hill right now to get prepared for monday. alex? >> you and i know that better than just about anybody, that's for sure. >> reporter: we certainly do. we live it every weekend, yes. >> all right, kelly o., thanks, my friend. peter baker is white house correspondent for "the new york times" and msnbc political analyst and laura basset, freelance journalist. you guys know it, too, because we've get you busy talking with us every weekend about these issues. peter, you first. the white house saying that they're not participating in the house proceedings. was that expected, tuned what effect? >> yeah, it's not much of a surprise, i think. i mean, from the white house point of view, the house impeachment at this point is a foregone conclusion. there's very few doubts left that the house is going to vote on a along party lines to impeach president trump. they don't feel like they're getting any kind of due process.

whether that's actually true or not, you know, the outcome seems foreordained, so why not hold back until the senate trial, where they're going to be in a body controlled by republicans? at least in that setting, they hope to have, you know, a friendlier set of rules and a friendlier, you know, atmosphere to present their case. now, they may not get everything that they want, you know. the republicans, just because they control the senate, are not necessarily going to agree to what president trump would like, which is to say, for instance, calling hunter or joe biden as witnesses, trying to turn the tables on the democrats by focusing on the bidens and the alleged, you know, scandals that trump's people have been trying to dig up out of ukraine, because in fact, the republicans have a 53-vote majority, but that means that any three republicans can change the outcome of that. they might not go along with plans for such a trial. in fact, i was talking with some people yesterday, senate republican folks who were saying look, you know, they're likelier to want to try john bolton or

mick mulvaney than they are hunter biden, because in fact, a lot of republicans want to have at least the appearance of a pretty, you know, substantial process, not just a circus. >> peter, the white house counsel was reiterating the president's statement, you know, let's carry out this impeachment process fast. but then we heard the gop-picked witness cautioned this week in his testimony on wednesday with judiciary, no, no, don't move too quickly. how do you square the two? >> you can't. this is what we've seen all along, the defenses are all over the map. either it was a perfect call and there's nothing to see here or yes, he did something wrong, but it's not impeachable. or maybe it's impeachable, but you should let the voters take care of this because the election is just around the corner. the defenses have been, you know, depending on who's doing the defending, right? some republicans want to take one approach. the white house wants to take another. the white house approach at this point is, it was a perfect call, there's nothing to see here, nothing to even examine here. but given that the house made very clear that the democrats are planning to impeach him along party lines, let's go

ahead and get going so we can go to the senate. >> that's what it is. get this over with in the house, get this to the senate, get it over quickly and then get to the politics, if this would help president trump to get this behind him, potentially, right, peter? >> exactly. and from his point of view, if he is going to be acquitted in the senate or charges are dismissed in some fashion, he'll be running around the country for 11 months saying i was exonerated, wave this as a campaign argument, saying the democrats brought up a hoax, they were trying to get after me for a partisan reason, but even the senate refused to go along and i was exonerated. not guilty or not convicted is not the same thing as exoneration, but he will play it that way and will have an argument to make with his base. >> okay, laura, if we look at the timing, it certainly appears democrats are on track to get the impeachment vote in the house by christmas. looking at the calendar, here's what we can expect for the month. monday's hearing. and then if the articles of impeachment are, in fact, drafted next week, we could see a committee vote friday, a full house vote one week later on the 20th. when you talk with democrats, do any of them have reservations

about this timeline? >> i think it benefits both parties to get this done quickly. on the democratic front, they don't want the impeachment proceedings to bump up against iowa caucuses. that would present a huge problem for somebody like elizabeth warren, who is both running for president and in the senate and does she campaign? does she come back for the vote? will people say she's not doing her job? the same with booker same with klobuchar. and so, i think democrats would really like to get it done quickly. and so would republicans. so, my guess is it's going to move before christmas. >> but laura, there's this question on the scope of impeachment and all the articles there. whether you try to limit it to just ukraine or then tap into the mueller report and refer to russia. i mean, explain the divide that's roiling the democratic caucus on this issue and the consequences of a choice like this. >> right. well, there were people like elizabeth warren who came out right after the mueller report was released and said we have enough information already, impeach the president, move on impeachment proceedings. and pelosi chose to wait until

now and to limit the scope to just ukraine, and some people say that that's really smart because it's a simple thing that the public can really understand. it was a phone call in which he said that aid to ukraine was contingent upon them investigating his political rival. that's a really easy-to-digest narrative. and the problem is, it leaves out many other crimes that trump has allegedly committed, laid out in the mueller report. and so, i think there's just two different lines of thinking there. >> hey, peter, you wrote about the president's nato meeting overseas and you said that it provided no respite for trump. i mean, this could have been an opportunity for him to demonstrate global leadership, you know, despite what's happening at home with impeachment, right? >> yeah, absolutely. and in fact, he had an argument to make. the secretary-general of nato got up and said, look, nato allies are spending more on their defense. he attributed that to president trump's pressure, $130 billion more over the last three years, $400 billion collectively over eight years. that is a good talking point for

the president. that is something he's talked about a lot and coming home and saying see, i got results, would be a good thing for him. but in fact it kind of got overshadowed with a testy meeting with president macron of france, who the two of them squared off over isis and over the future of nato. then of course, that viral video that caught the other world leaders, including justin trudeau of canada, seeming to kind of make fun of him a little bit, kind of talking behind his back. i think that really upset him and he left early without holding his final press conference that he has scheduled. so, that kind of left a sour event rather than the triumphant event he was looking for. >> okay, flip interpretation of that, though, peter. could that image of him not being part of the club, if you will, him being mocked and on the attack from those that are members of the club, might that play well to his base? >> yeah, essential certainly with his base, it's not a problem. if he's seen overseas defining the elite other countries, that plays into his america first appeal. see, if they're not happy with me, it means i'm doing my job.

that's the argument he makes on the campaign trail. there's not a lot of, you know, appetite among his rally-goers, anyway, for you know, conciliatory meetings with foreign leaders, so that's not a harm for him, i think. i think where it's a mistake or the washington audience, to the extent that that is even paying attention anymore, that he is an effective leader, this impeachment is off track because it's going after somebody who's getting results, both in the domestic economy, which we saw with that good jobs report the other day and overseas, as he would have liked to have shown at the nato summit. >> peter baker and laura basset, always good to see you. thank you. i'll talk with mike quigley of the intelligence committee about the articles of impeachment that he would like to see. hello, sir. we'll see you in just a moment. also, an american begins the long journey home after being held for three years by iran. how he was suddenly released just today. that's next. just today that's next. ♪oh there's no place like home for the holidays.♪

♪'cause no matter how far away you roam.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home. i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ - do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, legacybox professionally converts them

to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.

breaking news now on a prisoner swap between the u.s. and iran. we're getting a very first look at an american graduate student that was freed just hours ago by iran. this in exchange, the u.s. freed a detained iranian scientist. let's go to nbc's ali arouzi, joining me from tehran. where do we know i guess the whereabouts of this american student? do we know if he's on his way back? this happened just like, what, five hours ago? >> reporter: that's right, alex,

literally five, six hours ago this happened. he was put on a private jet, mr. wang, the chinese-american, was put on a private jet and sent to switzerland where the trade was done between him and the iranian prisoner. he was met there by brian hook, the special representative for iran. from there, mr. wang was flown to germany to the lan stahl military base. he is expected to stay there for the next three or four days while he undergoes medical tests to make sure he's okay. it's been a grueling ordeal, three years in an iranian prison. i think once those medical tests have concluded, he'll then be back on his way to the united states to be reunited with his family that must be missing him a great deal right now. but alex, this was one of those very rare cases of cooperation between tehran and washington. it's not often we see these results come up with good

results, but this is one of those cases. obviously, this was not done directly between tehran and washington in the absence of any diplomatic relations between the two countries. this deal was brokered by the swiss, who represent american interests in iran. the two were swapped on swiss soil. so, this shouldn't be seen as some major debt between america and iran. tensions between the two countries still remain very, very high, and there are still four other americans being held or missing here in iran whose families are probably hoping that they'll be the next ones on a flight back home, but there's so much tension between these two countries, and it's so complicated. this is not going to be a sim people procedure. >> yeah, well, there are certainly going to be a couple of families at least today grateful for those intermedia intermediaries there from switzerland. ali arouzi, thank you from tehran. now a live look on capitol hill this saturday afternoon. a developing story as judiciary

committee members are working offer this weekend on the impeachment inquiry into the president. and reportedly, house speaker nancy pelosi is leading the efforts overall. now, here's a look at how her position has changed since the beginning of this year. >> impeachment is a very divisive place to go in our country. impeachment is a very divisive measure. but if we have to go there, we'll have to go there. >> sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for america, today i am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> joining me now, congressman mike quigley, democrat from illinois, member of the appropriations and intelligence committees, which means we've seen a bit of you of late, sir. thank you so much. >> thanks, alex. >> we have speaker pelosi who had a very somber tone on thursday. the wider democratic caucus, did they feel the same way, or do you think colleagues are feeling

more confident, a bit more boldened that they are doing the right thing? >> well, i think that's right. in the final analysis, this is a president that has never been held accountable for anything he's done wrong. i think the frustration really mounted after the mueller investigation was complete and barr and the president said they were exonerated. special counsel called a press conference and said he wasn't. and when this was released, the president of the united states still felt i think he dodged a bullet, because the day after mueller testified, he made the call to the ukrainian president, and here we are today as a result. so, i think there's a sense in the caucus that we're doing the right thing. there's a lot of effects of all this, as the speaker has detailed, but in the final analysis, we have to follow the constitution and the rule of law. >> are you getting a sense of happening today, how your colleagues are proceeding, you know, how it's going?

>> it's interesting. the intelligence committee and the extraordinary staff spent weeks, and most of them worked the staff over thanksgiving and the weekend there preparing the intelligence committee report. i now have some sympathy for the counterparts on judiciary as they work through this weekend to put together this report that will be put together with our report to probably provide the fuel for the articles of impeachment. >> can you propose a timeline, a draft for these articles? >> i think you can see what's ahead. we're going to have the hearing on monday in judiciary, where they hear from the council from both committees. they take that information. probably move forward with something akin to a mark-up, put those articles together for a full vote, and hopefully, before the end of the year have the full vote on the house floor involving articles. >> it's been suggested, perhaps,

a full vote friday the 20th. do you think that is a reasonable target? >> you know, anything can hap n happen. this is an extraordinary time. we're serving under a very unusual president, who, something could happen tomorrow that amazes us all. and i think chairman schiff made it clear, the investigation continues. there's new information learned all the time. we're continuing to issue subpoenas. regardless of what happens at the end of this year, those investigations will continue, again, because this president will not stop what he's doing until the american people know exactly what he has done. it's fascinating to me, there was an october 3rd call -- an october 3rd question by a reporter in which a reporter asked the president of the united states what he hoped president zelensky would do. on october 3rd, the president still said he wants him to do this investigation. so, clearly he hasn't learned or

doesn't think he did anything wrong. >> can i ask, given all that you heard on intelligence, you have digested all of this evidence firsthand, do you agree with the summarization that there are three notable articles going forward on impeachment, those being abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of congress, and obstruction of justice? are those the three that you think are the most likely to be put forth? >> they make sense. i think if you do it in those three, under richard nixon, article three was obstruction, and there's listed four specific instances in which president nixon obstructed justice or congress. i think this president probably had four in one day telling people that they couldn't testify and blocking, you know, hundreds of thousands of documents that would come to congress otherwise. so, i think that makes sense. i think that we're going to see more of this under him. oh, and it also makes sense

because you can bring in the mueller obstruction evidence, 10 to 11 counts that the special counsel detailed and brought before congress. so, i think it's possible to fold those into the same articles under the same line dealing with obstruction as a whole. >> okay. i'm curious how you interpret the president's move to turn down judiciary committee's offer to take part in any way in this process. >> i don't think it's any surprise. what the president's done has stand aside, let others do his dirty work and obstruct the investigation every chance he's had. and unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle have seen fit to follow suit. i would like to think that if the roles were reversed and we were talking about a democratic president, i would be doing exactly the same thing. you know, at some point in time, party doesn't matter as much as the rule of law and what's right for this country. and i'd like to think if only a

few were to stand up and do the right thing, the american public would take notice. >> all right. congressman mike quigley, we always take notice of you, sir. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. a back-and-forth between candidates creating controversy on the campaign trail. what michael bloomberg said that offended cory booker. bloombergt offended cy orbooker ♪ hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again.

just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so we're in this little town near salerno and everyone has dad's eyebrows. help your family discover their unique story, with a gift from ancestry. help your family discover their unique story, 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.

if this debate stays what it is right now, this 2020 election will have more billionaires than black people. >> i endorsed cory booker a number of times. he's very well spoken. >> it's just stunning at times that we are still revisiting these sort of tired tropes or the language we have out there that folks i don't think understand. and fact that they don't understand is problematic. >> a war of words breaking out on the 2020 campaign trail between billionaire mike bloomberg and cory booker, the lone african-american candidate still in this race. joining me now, rick tyler, republican strategist, and zerlina maxwell, director of progressive programming for sirius xm.

both are msnbc political analysts. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first, zerlina to you. that reaction with booker, that was from your show yesterday on sirius xm "signal boost." >> yes. >> how would you sum up his response and bloomberg's remarks? >> well, i had this same reaction. i mean, what was a little bit funny was that right before his response to the question, i say in sort of exacerbated tone, like you're a senator! how is he just saying you're well spoken? i mean, we have to do away with this description of educated black people as articulate and well spoken and clean, you know, to quote joe biden from 2008 as if it's sort of a surprise that black people have these qualities. if you went to yale, you're probably going to speak pretty well. and so, don't be surprised when black people who are educated and certainly black people who are in the senate can show us and be very educated and well spoken. and i think it goes to a blind

spot that we sometimes have where older white people can generally be a little condescending when talking about black people. and i think that there is a disconnect that is going to affect the race. to booker's point, there are more billionaires than black people in a party where our base is people of color, and specifically women of color. so, i think the message that bloomberg may have to tweak is being able to speak to those constituencies, and he has some blind spots on stop-and-frisk and also on the central park five. he blocked their settlement for over ten years. they were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated, and he did not help them become at least whole for over a decade. >> i want to pose one more question to you about this, the tenor of this, because senator kamala harris, use as you know, exited the field. let's look at the candidates who qualify for the next democratic debate stage. those are the only ones who have

at least have qualified. others may, perhaps. but do you see anything wrong with this picture? because it seems awfully monochromatic. is it something that all democratic candidates should be concerned about? zerlina, to you. >> yes. i think that not just the democratic candidates but the party needs to be concerned with the fact that our stage is now going to be all white, as of today, at the next debate, and that does not reflect the base of our party. our party is black and brown. we're young and we're women, and we want that reflected in the candidates that we have to choose from. that doesn't mean that a white male candidate cannot speak to the issues of those communities, but it is awfully hard to look at a stage of all white people and some who are saying things that make it appear that they don't understand our issues, that is a very problematic thing for the democratic party. the demographics are shifting. we're getting to a point where i

have to say, we're at the end of white politics overall and whiteness being the central tenant of our political conversation. we must allow an entry point for other people's issues to become the centerpiece of our political conversations. >> all right, we have senators harris and booker who have both expressed some concern over how easy it is for billionaires to enter this race and then end up outspending everybody else. i want to listen to what gop strategist rick wilson said here on msnbc last night. >> i call this the bonfire of the billionaire vanities. these guys, tom steyer and mike bloomberg are in this race, and you know, if they want to be rid of trump, if they want to really do something effective with all that money burning a hole in their pocket, they would be out spending $200 million to register voters. they'd be out spending $200 million in the swing states in ohio, pennsylvania, arizona, wisconsin, hammering donald trump to a bloody flat, greasy

pulp on the highway. with ads. >> what do you make of that, ahead of the bloody, flat, greasy pulp part? but democratic candidates better to support candidates by registering voters particularly in the swing states? >> well, it's a wonderful country when political consultants can convince billionaires with giant egos that they aren't qualified to be president and they will fleece them for all their worth, because i don't think michael bloomberg's going anywhere. yet, he will spend an extraordinary amount of money, which he did in the new york mayor's race, by the way, and he did win, but he spent an extraordinary amount of money to get there. so, yeah, money is a problem in politics. i might disagree about how to solve that problem. but it is a problem when someone with michael bloomberg can come in with the billions that he spent. the problem is, for him, that's just not how the democratic primary set up. you actually have to get and meet voters in iowa, new

hampshire, and south carolina. his strategy is to have chosen to not do that, probably because that is not mayor bloomberg's talent. he would not do very well there. and you know, he's foregone taking any donations, probably because he wouldn't raise that much money, so he's left, you know, essentially buying a seat. although i just don't think it will be successful. and that is one good thing, if i'm correct, that remains in this process, is that billionaires won't be able to buy the presidency. i'm hopeful, anyway. >> i want to pivot and play a comment from former u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley, in an interview with glenn beck talking about confederate flag. let's listen to that. >> south carolina fell to her knees when this happened. this is one of the oldest african-american churches. these 12 people were amazing people. they love their church. they love their family, they

love their community. and here is this guy that comes out with his manifesto holding the confederate flag and had just hijacked everything that people thought of -- >> she, of course, talking there about the killings there in june of 2015 at the mother emanuel a.m.e. church there. so, before dylann roof, she suggests that in the state of south carolina, the confederate flag stood for service, sacrifice, and heritage. she had gone on to say that in that interview. and she said the media's what wanted to make a case about racism. is that how you see it, rick? >> yeah, this is -- this is interesting because i've always been fascinated with the history of the civil war. my ancestors fought for the union, so we were on the winning side, and it is interesting that in the civil war, the losing side maintains its battle flags, monuments, and statues that i don't know of any other case where that has happened.

but there's no question today that the confederate flag is a symbol of, and is used as a symbol of racial hatred. so you know, look, this country was divided during the civil war. families killed each other. americans killed each other. lincoln is remembered as one of the greatest presidents, not donald trump, for preserving and bringing the union back together. and we paid a mighty price, and we're still processing it through. it's really a remarkable thing. >> yeah. i want your take, zerlina, and just remind you that nikki haley was speaking on behalf of the people of south carolina. she was the governor at the time. that was her interpretation of this flag and what it meant to them. do you agree? >> no, she's completely wrong. she's backwards, actually. i as a young child had a very visceral response to the confederate flag. and often if i saw it -- in northern new jersey where i grew up, you didn't see it much, but

in the southern part of new jersey, you saw it often. i would leave notes on people's cars, like going back to when i was 8 years old, because i believe the confederate flag is a symbol of racism. and that is always going to be true, because to rick's point, it represents the losing side in a battle where they were trying to preserve the enslavement of my ancestors. and so, there is no question about what the confederate flag stands for, nor is there a question about the fact that the monuments that have gone up since the 1920s all over the south happened at a time when they were trying to reinforce white supremacy. it didn't go up right after the civil war. they went up in a moment where america was going through a period of jim crow, lynching, and racial strife. and so, there is no doubt of what the flag represents. she's just flatly wrong and she cannot admit the truth. >> i have to say, from that, though -- >> well, politics plays a huge

part in that, right? i don't want it left unsaid that to get elected governor of south carolina, unfortunately, you had to defend the flag. that is changing. that is changed. she was part of that change, but that -- >> bringing down the flag. she did -- she was responsible for that. she did bring down the flag, and the flag pole, because she was worried that if that flag pole stayed -- >> well, bree newsome, the -- >> go ahead. >> i was just going to say that activist bree newsome is the brave black woman who went up, despite the threat to her life to remove the flag in the first instance. >> that was incredible. >> and she was arrested immediately. so, while haley absolutely did as governor show some leadership, i mean, she's gone backwards on that in this moment. >> i'm out of time, but i'm sure i'll see you again soon. thank you. if it weren't for president trump, you might not snow leta page's name. breaking her silence on being one of the president's favorite targets. i'm going to speak with the reporter who convinced page to

tell her story. convinced page o tell her story 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.

former fbi lawyer lisa page resigned from the department well over a year ago, but she has not been able to escape the spotlight, thanks to president trump. a new op ed in the "washington post" looks at why she's been such an intense and constant target of president trump's eyre, and it all started when a text exchange between page and her former colleague, peter strop, became public in 2017,

critical of president trump. page first spoke about her story this week with molly, who is joining me in studio. first, what brought this about? what brought you and lisa page together? >> i knew she had a story to tell about the human cost of trumpism, and i really wanted to hear it, because i felt like we see this so much, but we never really see what -- i wanted to know, what does it feel like to have the president of the united states use you to distract from other stuff. and so, i kept sort of texting her. and eventually, we got there, but it was -- she didn't want to be famous. >> yeah. >> so, when a subject doesn't want to be famous, it's this interesting, you know, why do you want to do an interview? and we got to a point where she really needed to set the record straight. >> yeah, yeah. you know, she's been a target of the president's eyre certainly time and time again. why, though? why does he keep going back to her when everyone else seems to have moved on?

>> i think for him, it's too-part. he likes a powerful woman, right? like remember, he's still talking about hillary, and she's not running for president anymore. he loves a powerful woman. that's a great foil for him. and then, she works -- she worked in the fbi and she worked on mueller, so she has this deep state narrative which he loves to talk about. so, i think that she gets -- she sort of fills two of the things that he likes to talk about. >> yeah. and look, obviously, you worked this for quite some while, but when you sat down with her, she told you the reason that she now decided to break her silence is because of a comment that the president made about her during a rally last month, referencing the affair that she had with peter strzok and here's what he said. >> i love you, peter! i love you, too, lisa! lisa, i love you. lisa, lisa! oh, god, i love you, lisa. >> i don't even know how to respond to that. did she have a response to that, i mean, when you asked her about

it? >> well, she was pretty more fih. remember, this is a woman who's a lawyer, works for the fbi and is completely self-made. so, for her -- and she was the only woman in her honors class in the doj. so, she was not used to -- she did not -- you know, she signed up to work for the government and do what was right and not to be, you know, a right-wing talking point. and she's a feminist, so she was pretty horrified to be sexualized by the president of the united states like that. >> i'll bet. look, he talks about her. he certainly tweets about her, has done so more than 30 times, in fact, most recently, apparently, in response to your article. so, i mean, is there an obsessive feel to the president's fixation on her? >> yeah. i mean, he does this with other women, too. i mean, this is kind of his thing. and she fills a lot of the talking points that he likes of, you know. and i think that the base enjoys the massageny and it gets very ginned up. and you know, he's just used to

it, and it distracts. i mean, a lot of the times, like one of the times -- the last time he had tweeted about her before i interviewed her was after roger stone had gotten that guilty verdict. and he was like, what about lisa page and peter strzok? why aren't they in jail? and so, i do think there is a sense where he feels he can use this to distract from other stuff. >> it is a compelling article. it's in "the daily beast" by you, molly john-fast. anyone interested should read this. appreciate it. sharing their stories. how undocumented immigrants describe a day in the life run working for the trump family and how his run changed everything. d how his run changed everything - [spokeswoman] meet the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology,

you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps.

new and surprising revelations this week about what it's really like to work for the trump organization as an undocumented immigrant. it comes as dozens of undocumented workers say they've had jobs at the president's properties for years. two of his former house keepers have shared their stories with the "washington post." and joining me now is joshua partlow, staff reporter for the "washington post" and co-author of the article we are going to discuss. josh, with a welcome to you. okay, so, i know for this article for the "washington post," 48 people were spoken

with, all of whom said they had worked illegally for the trump organization at across 11 of its properties. what were their experiences like as they worked for the trumps, if you can just give that to me in general? then we'll get in details. >> well, they had -- first of all, the types of jobs they had were generally manual labor type positions. so they worked in as the greenskeepers on the golf courses. they worked in the kitchens, preparing food, in the clubhouses, and they were the maids and domestic workers, cleaning the clubhouses and the villas where the trumps and others lived. so you know, it was hard work, long hours, often low pay, and many of them worked for the president for years and decades. >> really in a very intimate setting, particularly those housekeepers that are interviewed. let's get to what happened in july when the president said to reporters that he doesn't know whether the trump organization has employed undocumented workers. take a listen to what he said. >> that i don't know because i don't run it, but i would say

this, probably every club in the united states has that because it seems to be, from what i understand, a way that people get business. >> any part of that plausible? >> yeah, i'm sure there's other golf courses that also employ undoimted workers, but what many people do, and after the story started coming out this year the trump organization's also done is enroy in the e-verify system, which allows employees to check with the federal government if the documents that employees submit are real or not. so, you know, for many years, the trump organization hadn't taken that step. and from what the workers tell us, they didn't really make any effort to verify that the documents people submitted were real. it was widely spoken about at the company that managers and supervisors were aware about these workers' undocumented

status, so you know, it seems unlikely. >> i want to pull up a couple of the anecdotes mentioned in this article, pretty eye-opening, for instance this one, that trump leaked tic tacs. he wanted in his bureau at all times two full containers of white tic tacs and one that was half full. the same rule applied to the brand of face makeup from switzerland that trump slathered on, two full containers, one half full. then there's another one interesting -- donald trump liked irish spring bar soap in his shower, but his house keepers quickly learned not to throw out his soap, even if it had worn down to the tiniest sliver. trump decided when he wanted something discarded when that happened, with clothes or newspapers, he would toss them on the floor. what does it tell you about the president, about who he is when out of the public eye? >> well, one of the things we learned from these house keepers is how particular he is about his preferences. and they had this very unvarnished and intimate view

into his personal habits. they would come and clean his villa, private home in bedminster, new jersey. sandra diaz and vicki morales, the two women we write about. and so, they saw exactly the way he wanted things, and that included that he wanted six identical golf outfits -- beige pants, white shirts, you know, ironed underwear, his red hats. and it went down to the way he liked his tic tacs or his makeup in a specific amount. >> yeah. >> so, they were also told that they needed to leave no trace, which we thought was interesting. and you know, they knew that they wore shoe coverings, latex gloves, and they were told not to wear any perfume or makeup or anything that would leave the faintest sort of trace of their presence, so -- >> it is -- >> yeah -- >> it's extraordinary. i do want to note, though, when asked about these anecdotes, here's what the white house press secretary stephanie

grisham had to say -- "the assertions made for this story are not only false, they are a disgusting attempt at invading the privacy of the first family. this is not journalism, it is fabricated tabloid trash." quickly, did the trump administration ever give you an official response to the story? i'm sure you reached out. >> no, they didn't respond to this one. they've said in the past that media reports were the way they initially found out about undocumented workers and therefore they took action and fired many people after they were aware of it. >> joshua partlow, very interesting story there you bring us. thank you so much for the discussion. there's a lot to talk about at the top of the hour. congressman al green will give me his take on the timeline in the impeachment process. also, former san francisco mayor willie brown talks 2020 and why there aren't more candidates of color in the democratic field. color in the democratic field. applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99.

that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

good day, everyone, from msnbc world headquarters here in new york. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." it is day 75 of the impeachment inquiry on what could be a defining weekend in the pursuit of impeachment charges against president trump. impeachment is just one of this hour's big stories we'll be covering with our team of reporters and analysts. first to the breaking news. the house judiciary committee last hour releasing its report out lining constitutional grounds for impeachment. it's essentially a summary of what was presented at wednesday's hearing with constitutional impeachment experts. the panel also working through the weekend behind the scenes for monday's hearing. here's what congressman mike

quigley told me a short time ago on what to expect. >> you can see what's ahead. we're going to have the hearing on monday in judiciary, where they hear from the counsel from both committees. they take that information, probably move forward with something akin to a mark-up, put those articles together for a full vote, and hopefully before the end of the year have the full vote on the house floor involving articles. >> meantime, the white house says it wants nothing to do with any of this. let's go to msnbc's hans nichols, joining us from the white house with more on that. so hans, with a welcome, what is the white house argument on why they're not participating? >> reporter: they continue, alex, to attack the process. throughout this entire ordeal for the white house, it's always been a question of whether or not you engage on the substance or you attack on the process, and they've referred the latter approach. so you saw the latest iteration of this with that letter from pat sipponie, came out late last

night. take a look at what he had to say. he said house democrats have wasted enough of america's time with this charade. you should end this inquiry now and not waste any more time with additional hearings," a strong indication that they're not going to cooperate. then you had a trump tweet saying nadler hasn't had a single fact witness, zero substance. country wants usmca and growth, not impeachment. polls have tanked on the do nothing democrats. now, there are disputes of how good that public polling is, alex, on which districts they're in, what direction they're going in. you saw brad pascal, the campaign in, tweet out top polling lines from districts where it appears democrats may have a difficult time with the president, but impeachment isn't that popular. even in some of these districts we'd expect the numbers maybe tomorrow more pro trump. now, you just heard from quigley there, one thing that caught my ear is articles of impeachment, plural. and i think one unknown on all

of this is just how many articles there are going to be. and you still hear quite a bit of hedging on just how long and what the timeline is going to be. he's trying to say by christmas, end of the year. i don't think we've had a firm indication from house leadership on just what the timeline of this will actually look like. alex? >> you're absolutely right. i did press him a little bit to see if the presumed date of the 20th of december would be there for a house full vote, and he did not confirm that and said, we'll see, anything can happen, which we know is true. hans nichols, thank you so much from the white house. abigail tracy, from "vanity fair" and daniel strauss from politico, welcome you. >> hi. >> ladies first, abigail. so, the white house calling this an unjust process, okay, but then refuses to participate when given the opportunity do that, so does that blow that argument out of the water and do they say this because if they participate, it only appears to validate this process? >> yeah, so i really think the latter. i think because this has been their ongoing argument

throughout this entire process, that it is unfair, that democrats aren't giving trump sort of the ability to defend himself in this process. you know, i think they are kind of trying to stick to that and trying to not participate and trying to continue to not, you know, provide evidence or provide donald trump or other lawyers to kind of participate in it because it really would undercut their greatest argument right now against impeachment. so i really think they're trying to stick to it, and their hope just being that supporters of donald trump will just continue to see him not being a part of the impeachment process, so they'll view it as unfair. >> okay. so, then you have the house judiciary committee holding its second impeachment hearing for monday. what are the expectations that day? >> i mean, it's really a continuation of the process right now that there's going to be more evidence collected about president trump and these calls with the ukrainians. i don't think we are any closer to a bigger bombshell beyond some kind of vote in the next

few weeks in the house and then moving forward towards the senate. i wouldn't say we're in a holding pattern, but it is a very process-driven moment right now and incremental. >> yeah. and you hear what congressman quigley said about the timeline laid out, what they presume will happen, and it's been anticipated for some quite some time, but are democrats a united on this timeline, or are there reservations? you will recall there was that republican-called witness, the constitutional attorney who said, you know, you can't rush this. >> right. and i think they're of two minds on this. there is a sense of urgency among congressional democrats to get moving, that there is unanimity on their side to move forward with impeachment. i don't know of any prominent democrat on the hill who is strongly opposed to an impeachment investigation. at the same time, though, it's ironic because the white house, too, says let's get this moving. let's go to a vote in the

senate. obviously, the bet there is that because there is a majority of senate republicans in that chamber, that will be to their advantage. but overall, it's an unusual situation where both sides really want to get this show on the road. >> mm-hmm, yeah, and albeit for different reasons, potentially, abigail. but is this one thing that democrats and the white house, they do steam agree on this, they want to get past this quickly? >> yeah, absolutely. right now, i've spoken to a lot of democratic staffers and democratic lawmakers over the last couple days, and you can really get a sense of fatigue, having sort of settled in on the hill right now. i think they are really ready for this process to sort of move forward and conclude in the house, at least, because right now they're at the point where if the white house continues to obstruct and continues not to turn over evidence, their real view right now is that they already have the evidence that they're going to get, so there's no real reason to sort of drag this out any longer than they need to at this point and not stay focused on other issues, whether it's drug prices or trade deals. >> right. i do want to take a peek at your

latest piece, abigail, in which you report that democrats updated this month's floor schedule to keep lawmakers around in order to paint the president in a corner. so, what's that about? >> yeah. so, what you saw is at the beginning of last week, they changed the floor schedule to really make sure that democrats are here over the week of december 16th. so, even as congressman quigley said, you know, that sort of december 20th date that people are kind of floating out there is hoping to have a floor date but before then. one other thing i've kind of heard from a number of sources, and this isn't necessarily confirmed at this point as we've sort of talked about dates haven't necessarily been nailed down at this stage, but one of the ideas is possibly to actually have the impeachment vote prior to a budget vote sort of with the hopes that the president then would sign any kind of budget deal to sort of avoid a look of presidential pettiness, i guess, after kind of if he says no following an impeachment vote in the house. >> yeah.

daniel, have you heard about anything in the words of congressman mike quigley with whom i spoke that, look, anything can happen, any surprises that people worry about anticipating? >> not really. there's just a general sense of apprehension right now about what could come next. i don't think there's any -- it's like you and congressman quigley said, we're in precarious times where there are a lot of unusual twists and turns. i would not be surprised if there would be some new revelation about the white house and conversations related to the sondland call, but i don't have any information support that. nonetheless, i thank you for your conversation, abigail, daniel, see you soon. thanks, guys. now to the second big story this hour, questions about what motivated a saudi national to open fire at the naval air station in pensacola and some revelations to discuss. let's get to nbc's blayne alexander, who's back with us

once again to show the latest from pensacola. long day for you both yesterday and today, but let's get to it. you've been gathering information. let's talk about where this investigation is heading, blayne. >> reporter: yeah, alex, that's exactly what we're going to be asking fbi officials when we hear from them. we have a little bit more guidance on when we might be getting an update from the fbi. we do know that we're expecting a news conference to come some time tonight at about 6:00 or later. that's 6:00 eastern time, 5:00 p.m. local. so they've been very clear all along that they will update us when they have something to update, but they have said they're at the beginning of what is going to be a very long and very intense investigation. in fact, we know that they have been out overnight combing what they call a very large crime scene there on the base, so we know we expect to hear from them tonight. another thing we're waiting to find out, alex, is a little bit more about the victims, those people who were caught in the gunman's path, either the three who were unfortunately killed or

the eight who are still recovering. we do know that we're not expecting to find out those names until sometime later tonight. the navy has to go through an extensive process. so per navy protocol, we're not going to get that information until sometime later tonight. but alex, we do know that we have a number of questions, chief among them how exactly the shooter was able to get a gun on base. of course, weapons are not allowed. guns are not allowed. and how he became in possession of that firearm in the first place. we're going to be talking to, hopefully, some people who have a little bit more context around that. one more thing to kind of talk to you about, alex, is while we're waiting to get more information about this investigation is here in pensacola, just kind of to give you a sense of the mood and people around here. we know that there's a prayer vigil that's coming up not too long from now and not too far away from here at a church. one thing that we've been hearing over and over constantly is just how many people really jumped into action yesterday and have been coming together in the wake of this tragedy here. and on that front, alex, i have

a bit of good news to report. we do know that one of the two deputies who was shot in yesterday's attack has been released from the hospital. we do know that he has gone home to recover. the other deputy underwent surgery overnight and is still recovering this morning. alex. >> okay, i love ending on that good news note. thank you for that. nbc's blayne alexander. let's go to the third big story we're following for you today. breaking news from iran, an american graduate student freed in a prisoner swap, a rare diplomatic breakthrough for u.s./iranian relations. let's go to nbc's ali arouzi in tehran with more. ali, again, this was a surprise. it was now six or seven hours ago that it went down. the u.s. and iran were working, as uchz pointed out, through back channels to make this happen, right? it was not direct between the two countries. >> reporter: that's right, alex. iran and america don't have any direct relationships. the u.s. doesn't have an embassy here. and that's why the swiss represent american interests in

iran in absence of any relationships. so, this had been brewing through back channels, iran foreign minister jahvid zarif had indicated that there was something in the works last year. he said that he would like to see mr. wang returned to his family as long as the iranian arrested in the united states was returned here. and obviously, the swiss and other people that we may not be aware of have belong working hard over the last year to make that happen, and that happened today. but it's important to point out, alex, that although it's unusual, it's not unheard of for there to be back-channel negotiations between these two old foes. there have been back-channel negotiations to release other prisoners, and most significantly, there were back-channel negotiations between intermediaries of iran and america to lay the groundwork for the nuclear deal about a year before they even embarked on it. so, these things happen, and we

usually hear about it when it becomes newd newsworthy. they're usually kept under wraps. the people negotiating them are very secretive about what's going on. they don't want to release into the public, but then we hear about it on days like this when where wang has been released. there is not an indication that there will be a big debt onbetter with america or that the other americans held or missing here in iran are going to be released imminently, but it is at least a positive step. and president trump just tweeted that he made a very fair negotiation with iran and that a deal is possible. obviously referring to dealing with the nuclear program. but i can tell you, alex, from where i'm standing, the powers that be in iran are in no mood to negotiate with president trump unless he drops all sanctions against the country, which seems very unlikely. but all of that aside, at least there was some good news today

that mr. wang, after three years, is going to be returned home to his family. from what we understand right now, he has been thrown to the land stall military base in germany where he's receiving military information and checks. once those are completed, i think he will then be flown to the u.s. to be reunited with his wife and child. >> okay. wow. what a reunion that will be. ali arouzi, thank you so much from tehran. congressman al green of texas joins me next. he was the first member of congress to call for the president to be impeached, and he was mentioned six times in a republican report. so why is that? and later, former san francisco mayor willie brown. he's going to talk to me about 2020 and the lack of diversity among the democratic front-runners. diversity among the democratic front-runners. ♪ limu emu & doug and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.

and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps.

♪'cause no matter how far away for you roam.♪ys.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

as the impeachment process slowly drags on with no direction, no focus, because they're having one big problem, and the problem is, the president did nothing wrong, and they can't prove it. >> this continued sham where they don't have any facts. they have yet to bring an impeachable offense. not only was there no quid pro quo, but ukraine got the money. >> republicans on the hill defending the president's actions after releasing a 123-page intelligence report that casts blame on democrats, saying impeachment is for, quote, purely partisan reasons, and they cite several democrats' comments, including one from congressman al green on this show, a comment that is repeated

six different times throughout the new report. here's what congressman green actually said. >> i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. >> we're going to bring him in right now, that democratic congressman from texas, al green, a member of the homeland security committee. welcome back to the broadcast. i'm curious to get your reaction to house republicans using your words to support their argument because you're mentioned not once or twice, but six times. are you at all concerned that your comments are helping republicans make their case? >> well, thank you for having me on. and if i may just say this, i lived 42 miles from pensacola naval air in ft. walton beach, so my sympathies and my condolences to all who have been harmed. i understand that the republicans really don't have any facts that they can use to defend the president, and so, they have to exaggerate things. as you well know, i was indicating that the president would claim that he did nothing

wrong, that he was, in fact, exonerated by virtue of the fact that we did not impeach him. and that has been made per pickously clear. but i don't find this to be a deal-breaker. i think the republicans have a lot more that they have to account for. and hopefully, we will continue to move forward. we are in a constitutional crisis. when a president becomes intractable and recalcitrant about releasing evidence and allowing witnesses to testify, that in and of itself speaks volumes about what's impeachable. i think that we cannot allow this to continue. the framers said, and alexander hamilton in federalist 65, that it's immediate harm to the country that is impeachable. if it's immediate harm, we have to move forward with expedition,

immediate speed, and that's what we're doing. >> in terms of those facts or lack thereof from the republican standpoint that you referenced, there's a new "washington post" op ed which argues trump creates evidence faster than the house can draft impeachment articles. but then two years ago, sir, i know that you introduced one of those first impeachment resolutions against trump, and let's look at how that went down. it lost 364-58. how do you think this process ends, if more evidence is revealed? and are you concerned at all that americans are having a waning interest as this process drags on? >> well, it was yesterday, in fact, that we celebrated, in a sense, that we had something that was brought to the floor. maybe i shouldn't say celebrated. let me just say that we brought to the floor the articles for a vote, and we received some 50-plus votes. then the second time some 60-plus, and a third time 95 votes. so, i believe that the american

people understand that this is something that we must do at this point. i don't speak for all of the american people, about the a majority seem to think so. and i think that we're moving forward in a very cautious and prudent way, which is what is expected, but i also think that if we don't include some of the things that are important to people of color, then i think that our business won't be finished. i do believe, ma'am, that we have to deal with the original sin. we have to deal with slavery. slavery was the thing that all of what president trump has done lately into motion. it's insidious sion of racism. the president has played on racism and he's used that as a weapon to galvanize a base of support, to mobilize people. we cannot overlook what happened when he came down the escalator

and just demeaned people of color, when he talked about the s-hole countries. he has found a way to use ugly words to his benefit and to the detriment of the people who are the object of his words. emily dickinson said a word is dead when it is said, some say, i say it just begins to live that day. his words take on life and meaning, and they hurt. and i know the people who are being hurt. and i came to congress to represent them, and i cannot let it go. so i appreciate whatever we will do, but until we deal with the issue of invidious discrimination as it relates to lgbtq community, the anti-semitism, the racism, the islamophobia, the transphobia, and also the misogyny that he has exemplified, i don't think our work is done. >> you know, sir, i do

appreciate your perseverance, the passion that you approach your job, but i did want to ask you about something that went down, i believe it was yesterday, in which you said that the president can be impeached more than once. take a listen to this. >> i hope to hear that we will expand this and take up issues beyond the ukraine issue. a president can be impeached more than once, and we can still investigate other issues. and when the president has committed additional offenses, and my suspicion is that he will, we can take those before the senate. >> in this round, if you want to categorize it that way, the president is certainly expected to be acquitted by senate, but how much might other proceedings actually change the outcome on impeachment? >> well, we don't do this because we believe that the senate is going to necessarily do one thing or not. i don't know that there will be any epiphanious moment for the

senate, what we might call a road to damascus moment, but i do believe this, they have to be given the opportunity to do the right thing. i mentioned, and i don't want to beat this to death, but slavery was a crime against humanity, and we never resolved that issue. and now we are finding that people are weaponizing its invidious sion, hate and racism. and with that racism being weaponized, we are seeing other candidates starting to do it now. i regret what ms. haley has said about the confederate flag. i think that people are seeing that you can succeed with hate, with racism. and we have to challenge this. so, yes, the constitution does not prohibit a president being impeached more than once. for example, if we impeach and it goes to the senate and the senate decides not to convict, if the president goes out on fifth avenue, he's used this as an example, so i shall follow up

with it, and he shots somebody, i would think that the american public would want us to have an inquiry. and if we find that he didn't do it in self-defense, that it was malicious, done with malice aforethought, they would want us to act. so, the president's behavior can dictate what we must do. we cannot overlook our constitutionally required duty to impeach if there are impeachable offenses committed, and if the president does something more, then we have to act. >> texas congressman al green, sir. it's always good to speak with you. glad to see you on this saturday. thank you. coming up, 2020 trouble. mike bloomberg's accused of making a racially insensitive remark about cory booker and a diversity problem suddenly develops in the 2020 democratic field. i'll speak with legendary fowler san francisco mayor willie brown about that and why he thinks bloomberg might be the best choips for democrats. be the bes choips for democrats

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. hi.

maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

well, the 2020 field is on the move today. most are flooding iowa and new hampshire, though michael bloomberg, andrew yang, marianne williamson, they are hot on the trail in texas and utah

respectively. nbc's vaughn millard is in iowa covering the weight of the contenders there ahead of the teamsters forum. with a good day to you, vaughn, what's happening where you are? >> reporter: we've got joe biden, pete buttigieg, amy klobuchar, bernie sanders are all going to be entering here, veterans memorial coliseum here in cedar rapids. to note, elizabeth warren is up in new hampshire here today. what you should be expecting is this is one of the last katia call events we should be expecting, essentially where the candidates come one after another to make a case to the teamsters in iowa. when you look at the candidates, who's qualified for the debate stage next month, it's a white stage. no candidates of color have qualified for that debate stage at this point. and as you've seen the likes of kamala harris drop out of the race earlier this week, you're beginning to see the candidates focus on one another, namely pete buttigieg and elizabeth warren. elizabeth warren on thursday calling out pete buttigieg over his work at mckinzie from 2007

to 2010, in which he has under a nondisclosure agreement, unable to talk about the clients that he worked for, but she also criticized him over his closed-press fund-raisers he's been holding. in return, pete buttigieg has called out elizabeth warren for not releasing her tax returns prior to 2008. asking if he is to be held to the standards of his time in corporate america, she should be as well. she has detailed a list of clients that she worked for, cases she was involved with in which she consulted legally back before 2008 at the same time she has not released those tax returns. i believe, actually, just in new hampshire, she addressed that question, saying that pete buttigieg was trying to distract from his current conflicts of interest. question marks over who is organizing these fund-raisers, essentially bundlers for his campaign. to note, pete buttigieg said that he is taking it into consideration, but alex, we are less than two months away from the iowa caucus, or we could say seven weeks away. this is go time.

the candidates, they're working the weekends. there is no stop for these candidates. just take pete buttigieg into account this last week. he went from north carolina to south carolina to alabama, new hampshire, and he's now here in iowa. these candidates have ramped up their schedules. they're making their play and they're trying to make a difference just seven weeks out. >> i think you're the one nasdaq calling it seven weeks instead of two months now my friend as well. because you're out on the trail all day every day, vaughn hillyard. thank you so much for all that. tension is brewing between cory booker and michael bloomberg. it all started when bocker made a comment earlier this week about the diversity of the democratic race and the next debate. >> by the way, there will now be, if this debate stage stays what it is now, this 2020 election will have more billionaires than black people. >> cory booker endorsed me a number of times and i endorsed cory booker a number of times. he's very well spoken. he's got some good ideas. >> it's sort of stunning at times that we are still revisiting these sort of tired

troe tropes or the language that we have out there that folks i don't think understand, and fact that they don't understand is problematic. >> and joining me now is former mayor of san francisco willie brown. welcome, sir, back to the broadcast. it's awfully good to see you. may we get right now to the article that you wrote recently in which you suggest that michael bloomberg might be the democrats' best bet of beating president trump. do you still feel that way? >> i certainly do. as a matter of fact, in my column in "the chronicle," i have repeatedly said there is certain odd number of democrats who could. i said it one time that hillary clinton in a rematch could very well be the best they had. i had no idea that michael bloomberg would even seriously consider after rejecting so many times. now i am convinced that he's out there, he's prepared to do the battle, and believe me, he may very well be the one guy that can dislodge trump from his perch among certain voters. >> can you sort of back that up

as to why you think that way? what is it about michael bloomberg that you think could make a pretty strong case against trump and eventually beat him? >> first and foremost, i think it's really, really important that candidates spend as much time talking to voters as they possibly can. you can do that about you don't have to raise any money. and clearly, bloomberg does not have to raise a nickel. he doesn't have to worry about that. he demonstrated that in new york when he went for a third term, when you were only allowed two. he is obviously a good campaigner with quality resources. secondly, i think that there are a certain number of people who really, genuinely believe that the kind of record you've accumulated in terms of addressing the needs of people on health care and things of that nature, and not in the bernie sanders/elizabeth warren context, but in a rational, reasonable context, where it works. he did that as the mayor of new

york, and he can clearly point to that. he has credentials in every way in that regard. and he also, i think, has, and will have good judgment on his running mate as distinguished from some of the other people. >> mayor, can you see why cory booker was upset with those comments, the ones that we played just prior to bringing you on, the comments from michael bloomberg? what do you think about that? >> well, let me tell you, cory booker is my daughter's candidate, at least in california and in the primary, something that disturbed me a little bit because i thought she should have really kind of consulted with her dad. but she was so impressed with his presentation, so impressed with how he conducted himself, that she ends up going around california introducing him. and clearly, it isn't lost on anybody that she is willie brown's daughter doing just that. so, she's cashing in kind of on the franchise. and so is cory booker. what she says about cory booker

is exactly what bloomberg said about cory booker. he absolutely explains himself clearly, precisely, and with passion and with enthusiasm. that was the nature of how i interpreted what bloomberg said and not in any other way. >> now, i'm just going to take a quick moment and stand up for your daughter. i imagine you very proud of her being independently minded and she is obviously joined by a lot of people who are impressed by cory booker, so she is not alone in those thoughts, but i understand you might have wanted your daughter to consult with you first. but i will ask you this, sir. certainly viable concerns about this month's democratic debate. as the only candidates who have qualified are white. andrew yang, tulsi gabbard, they each need one more poll to qualify before thursday's deadline. what is your reaction to that, to the homogenous nature of the candidates thus far? >> well, i have been incredibly

critical of the democratic national committee's nonsense of putting all these candidates through these crazy primaries. what we've learned are the warrants amplified each one of the candidates and each of their views. i prefer the system that gave us john f. kennedy that gave us a collection of other candidates. i chaired the jackson candidacy in 1988. we didn't go through all of this nonsense. we went directly to the people who would be in attendance at the delegate convention for democrats and who would then be able to cast their vote appropriately. that's really the way it should be done. this nonsense of going through all of these candidacies and having people terminate their candidacy one way or another. currently, we've got buttigieg and elizabeth warren destroying each other. the same goes -- you've got to know that kamala harris would still be in this race and would still be, in my opinion, the

most viable of all of the people to at least be the running mate if she had not gone through the horror of all of this nonsense in these all-imposing primaries that mean nothing, ultimately, in the general election. and so, i am critical of them for that purpose. >> and so, that is the reason that you attribute to her having to drop out of the race? was there anything else why she didn't gain traction? >> well, i think that when you literally have to think about, how would it look when i'm running in the general election versus a primary. she chose, apparently, to move away from being the u.s. senator from california with minimal opposition in being elected of being the attorney general of california on two occasions -- statewide. winning that job from a talented, quality republican person who ran against her from los angeles county. she really is an outstanding

candidate. she chose, however, to think about health care. it seems to me, if you think about health care and you want to do it as a democrat, you start with the affordable care act. you start with what obviously was put in place by president obama, and it worked. thousands of people now have coverage. enhance upon that, and you will not have to do the nonsense of doing like bernie sanders, who's going nowhere with his proposal, or elizabeth warren, who's going nowhere. when you, in the primary, try to make sure you are competitive and people say in this contest you are okay, you sometimes step in the wrong direction. i think that's probably an appropriate analysis of what happened to what would be in my opinion the most viable candidate on the ticket, a black woman with prosecutory background who literally destroyed jeff sessions when she

cross examined him and put kavanaugh on the defense when she cross examined him, and she'll put trump and his crowd on the defense when she cross-examined them in the impeachment hearings in the senate, if and when they get there. she is really impressing, and that's what we needed. that is not well showcased in a crazy primary like the democrats have put in place now. >> i will say, you never know, sir, it may not be over yet for her. she may indeed get a spot on the ticket at some point. we will see. lots to get through first, though. willie brown, awfully good to see you. come see me again soon, sir. thank you. >> thank you. invite me. >> i will! president trump aggressively stacking the federal court with conservative judges. the latest on that. also, the one story about brett kavanaugh's confirmation that you haven't heard. what the father of christine blasey ford said in an email to brett kavanaugh's father. n an e brett kavanaugh's father there's a lot of talk about value out there.

but at fidelity, value is more than just talk. we offer commission-free online u.s. stock and etf trades.

and, when you open a new fidelity brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate -- that's 21 times more than schwab's. plus, fidelity's leading price improvement on trades saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars last year. that's why fidelity continues to lead the industry in value while our competition continues to talk. ♪ talk fidelity. but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened.

as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

outrage this week after a former clerk for brett kavanaugh was given a lifetime job as a federal district court judge. sarah pitlyk is a conservative attorneymight be of the federalist society. she opposes abortion, surrogacy and invitro fertilizatiofertili. the national bar organization gave her a not-qualified rating saying she has no real trial or litigation experience. and this all comes as the senate under mitch mcconnell's leadership confirmed eight of

president trump's picks, bringing the total number of judicial confirmations for trump to 170 since he took office in january 2017. joining me now, ruth marcus, "washington post" columnist, also an msnbc contributor. and she is the author of "supreme ambition: brett kavanaugh and the conservative takeover." awfully good to have you here, ruth, and see you again. look, republicans changed these rules earlier this year to try to cut down on the amount of debate time that district court nominees face. this number, 170, can you put it into perspective, please, how that number compares to other administrations at this point? >> it's bigger and it's faster and it's really going to be donald trump's most enduring legacy, long after we're done with impeachment and long after the election. donald trump has achieved what republican presidents and conservatives have tried to achieve for the last 30 years. first of all, he has cemented a

conservative majority with the addition of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, and he has in the course of that also and with the prodding and help of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell also both transformed the lower courts and stocked them with conservatives, and including a number of justice kavanaugh's former clerks who are just the farm team for the supreme court and the appeals courts in years to come. >> absolutely. >> it's really a remarkable piece of work on the part of the president and with the aid, as i say, of people like the senate majority leader. >> yeah, absolutely. that's the legacy that he's been pursuing certainly in his career is leaving these kinds of appointment judges. sarah pitlyk, though, the implications of her appointment are what? >> well, it's very interesting that the american bar association's ratings are something that's been a contested point. it was actually contested when

justice kavanaugh was nominated to the federal appeals court and the aba rerated him and actually lowered his rating the second time around. but nothing is stopping republicans. they have the majority in the senate, and so, these not-qualified ratings, and sarah pitlyk is not the only one -- there have been other judges, really quite i think a record number of them who have been deemed to be unqualified, and unqualified for various reasons. in sarah pitlyk's case, as i understand it, she had never tried a case, she had never taken a deposition. she's been something of a movement conservative lawyer, expressing her conservative legal views and trying to press them in the courts and in legislatures, and that's perfectly fine. but when you're a federal district judge, it's probably a really good idea to have some trial experience. >> yeah, let me ask you quickly about your book.

as a candidate, you know that donald trump assured voters with a list of conservatives that he would nominate to the supreme court. brett kavanaugh's name was nowhere on any of those lists. where did he come from? >> ah, well, the big surprise, and to a little extent, the mystery of president trump's early lists was the absence of brett kavanaugh. it was something is missing here. it didn't seem to be a big deal because nobody really thought that candidate trump would become president trump. brett kavanaugh was not on those lists because there was some concern among conservatives, believe it or not, that he was not conservative enough, and president trump didn't like the idea of brett kavanaugh because he was too bushy. he had not only been nominated to the appeals court by president george w. bush, he had worked for george w. bush and he had married the president's secretary. so, it was a big lift to get brett kavanaugh onto that list. and the way he got onto that

list was with the help of the justice he replaced, justice anthony kennedy, for whom he had clerked. justice kennedy, i report in the book, took the president aside and said there's somebody missing from your list. >> okay. ruth marcus, author of the book "supreme ambition: brett kavanaugh and the conservative takeover." also msnbc analyst and also with the "washington post." what else? thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. traces of communications of the president's personal attorney. how rudy giuliani's phone records could draw others into the impeachment inquiry. e records could draw others into the impeachment inquiry. 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] the impeachment inquiry resumes monday when the house judiciary committee is presented with information from the last two months of investigation with that information made public in the intelligence committee's report released covering information about rudy giuliani through his phone records. joining me, chief correspondent for yahoo! news.

get into this, michael. one thing the phone records show, rudy giuliani had direct contact with someone from the office of management and budget. that is an office the interim chief of staff mick mulvaney oversees. put those things together. what's your reaction to that? >> certainly when we first saw those phone records at the call to list it as a call to omb left out, because it did suggest giuliani may have been directly involved in the decision to withhold the military aid to ukraine, but i have to say. questions have been raised about that phone call. whether it indeed was to omb. there's been some reporting that the three digits that started the call is the 395, i believe also goes to many other white house offices. so we don't know for sure whether rudy giuliani was talking to omb about the

military aid. >> what about the phone logs that have this mysterious call to number one? speculation that's to the president. >> right. >> is that your take as well? >> certainly that makes sense and no question that rudy giuliani would have been talking to the president during this time. he was his lawyer, and the president made multiple references certainly even in the phone call to zelensky to have his talk to rudy. >> what about the report noting civil calls between rudy giuliani and devin nunes in april around the time giuliani was pitching this investigation into the bidens? how bad for nunes? he did not disclose the calls to colleagues or at least to those on the intel committee? >> right. look, is there more than we should learn about those communications? sure. although on its face, nunes as a member of the committee, you know, has said he wanted to do

his own investigations into matters relating to ukraine. so it's not really a surprise that he would be talking to rudy giuliani. nor is it necessarily improper for him to do so. he can say he's doing it as part, as a ranking republican on the committee wanting to conduct his own investigation, learn as much as he can. >> what about public support? after these months of hearings and testimony, support for impeachment is not where democrats hoped it would be. new yahoo! news showing just 47% of americans think the president should be removed from office. why is this not overwhelming yet? this importance? >> i suppose because everybody's not watching msnbc, would be one explanation. but, look. democrats, no question, that democrats were hoping those two weeks of public hearings would move the needle and build public support for impeachment and removal, and, you know, polling is consistent that it did not.

and our pulse on 47% for impeachment and removal. 35% agains perce 45% against. a divided country no national con sense. democrats have one more shot this week when on monday they will be presenting the intelligence committee presenting its case to the judiciary committee, and daniel goldman, former msnbc analyst, will be front and center making the case. but, yeah. >> all eyes certainly on that, michael isikoff. thank you. always good to talk with you. a little more on this, everyone. talking about what the president's personal attorney is doing now in ukraine. that's next.

(kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

it's 2:00. i'm out of time. i'm alex witt. see you tomorrow at noon eastern. up next my colleague kendis gibson takes it away. >> good to see you. >> thank you. live here at msnbc world headquarters in new york. just in, house judiciary committee releases their report laying oun the constitutional grounds why they say president trump should be impeached, and as the inquiry moves forward, rudy giuliani make as trip to the country at center of it all. what is the president's personal lawyer doing in ukraine? freedom today for an american citizen held three years in iran. new details on the prisoner swap

that led