she has a fabulous pink day. >> for sure in pink and just like you today. so much fun. okay. thank you. well, after that all of that reveille, everybody, a very good day from msnbc world headquarters, and it is 9:00 a.m. out west and high noon out east. we have new and alarming details this hour, because we are about to learn more about the pensacola shooting suspect and what he was doing in the days before the naval base attackment fast and furious in capitol hill and impeachment in overdrive. the judiciary members working through the weekend to prepare the ultimate case before the nation revealing tomorrow. >> we have a lock solid case tomorrow, and the case is going to be presented to the jury would be guilty in about three minutes' flat. >> this is a joke of a process. it is dangerous to the country. >> and some key answers to impeachment questions ahead. plus 2020 contenders, and the

escalating battle over diversity in the democratic field and the former spokesperson for president obama is going to join me with his take. but first to, the breaking news on the deadly mass shooting at the naval station in pensacola and in fact, any minute now we are expecting a news conference from the fbi, and they will be updating the investigation and we will bring it to you lye when it is under way. and new word a short time ago secretary of defense mark esper that some saudi nationals were contained on the base but he would not confirm in the charge was terrorism. >> they were detained some of his friends were on the base as i understand it, and i was told that some one or two were filming it, and what is unclear if they were filming it before it began or picked it up when it was folding and this is maybe a distinction with or without the difference, but that is why we will let the investigation play out. >> the shooter is a saudi national training on the base

opening up fire on a classroom friday killing three and inju injuring eight. and blayne alexander has been covering this since friday in pensacola. and so, we have new information, but still plenty of unanswered questions, right? >> absolutely, alex. those are some of the things that are going to be asked. this is first time that we will get a chance to ask questions of the fbi officials since friday evening, and so we have a number of questions. since friday, we have learned a good deal of information about the shooter mohammad al sharmani. and some of it through our colleagues through their law enforcement sources, and we have been learning disturbing details about the hours and days leading up to the event. they were able to confirm that he hosted three fellow saudi students and invited them over the his home for dinner where he showed them videos of mass shootings, and we know that these were people who he used to

run closely with, but after a recent trip back to saudi arabia he returned here to the u.s. in february and we are told that he was considerably more pias and no longer wanted to associate with them. so when the officials come in here in a few minutes we will ask about that trip, and ask and try to get more details about the shooter, and about his background and also going to ask about the handgun that he use and one how he was able to get it on the base, and certainly, weapons are not allowed on the military bases, and so we will inquire if they have more information as to how he was able to get that on base. and then of course, the biggest question, do we know anything further about the motive here? as you know the officials have not labeled it an act of terror, and we will ask them where they are with that investigation and exactly what they know about what caused that shooting, alex >> thank you, and we know you are right where that news conference is getting under way and when it does, we will take that live and speak with you. now, day 76 of the

impeachment inquiry, and now house judiciary members are on capitol hill working through the weekend and readying for another critical hearing tomorrow. the lawmakers are looking for pressure at the end of the year deadline and looking to draft articles of impeachment, and the differing views of party lines of whether the evidence of president trump is even enough. >> we have a lock solid case. the case we have if presented to the jury would be a guilty verdict in three minutes' flat. and all of this nonsense of the hearsay evidence, and there is considerable direct evidence. >> there is a big difference of what is alleged against the president of the united states, and what actually happened, because this all comes down, dana, you know to foreign aid being withheld. >> and meanwhile, the democrats are sending the mixed signals owhether they want to consider including the allegations of the mueller investigation into the potential article of

impeachment. >> my personal view is that we should proceed only on the items that we have direct evidence, and there is a lot of direct evidence relative to the abuse of power and ukraine and the russians relative to the biden investigation. the mueller report is a report. we don't have direct witnesses. >> and the evidence is virtually uncontested, and he worked with the russians in trying to affect the election in 2016 and then tried to cover it up. >> and things were heated when nbc's chuck todd and ted cruz squabbled over the idea of ukraine election meddling. >> ukraine blatantly interfered and the sitting ambassador of ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting donald trump in the election and this is unusual. >> what did donald trump say about ukraine and crimea that

might have inspired -- >> so you are saying that they wanted hillary clinton elected -- >> and the difference of what you are saying -- >> and the parliamentarian. >> and so far there is not a lot of confirmation on that and the number is changing -- >> right. because the house won't -- hold on, chuck, chuck, hold on a second. >> wow. squabbling for sure. and now new reaction from the president who is tweeting in anticipation of the hearing monday and decrying the process and accusing the democrats of changing the impeachment guidelines. we will go to hans nichols for that, and you have mark meadows saying something similar about guidelines changing, and it is sounding like talking point, but what is this about? >> the white house believes that attacking the process is the political winner, and the president talked about yesterday before he departed that in the states that it matters the polls are headed in his direction and

unclear of the public polling, but that is what the president is claiming. in terms of any process changes in the last 48 hours, i'm unaware of any. and the main news out of the house democrats in the last 48 hours is this committee report from the house judiciary that lays tout constitutional guidelines for impeachment and that does not change the process, but in a lot of ways there is uncertainties about the process, because many of the democrats as your clips have shown, they don't know exactly how many articles of impeachment, and what the next week is going to look for and if they are going to have a vote certain for articles of impeachment this week or next. so, yes, you have the president's tweet. so you are also hearing from the administration and hearing it clearly from mike pence in the interview that he did that aired last night and taped earlier, but this idea that there might not be the votes in the house. >> i know that speaker pelosi has announced articles of impeachment, but i have to tell you that i served in the congress for 12 years, and i

don't think it is a foregone conclusion. >> interesting. >> that the democrats will be able to get the votes to pass articles of impeachment, because i hear from people all over the country, the support for this president, and the progress that we have made and rebuilding the military and reviving this economy. >> look, mike pence is either right or wrong and in his role as a whip counter with nancy pelosi, and i love to talk to you, alex, but i wish i were out there in some of the swing districts that tend to vote for the republican candidates that are now occupied by democrats, because it is that 31 who is going to determine this, and we will see if pence is right or wrong, because he has made a prediction, and we will see in the next couple of weeks if everything is proceeding at pace whether or not house speaker nancy pelosi actually has the votes to impeach the president and send it to the senate. >> i get it, but you wish you were out there drilling down and

getting the answers and getting your own barometer on what is going to happen, and if you do it, do it on my show. >> deal. >> and thank you, hans. and joining me now is charlie savage, and legal writer for "new york times," and liz goodwin deputy chief for the "boston globe" and natasha bertrand a writer for politico and consultant to msnbc. and so is there any doubt that the democrats will secure the impeachment vote, and hans describes him as a whip count, but something substantive that we are missing? >> i don't think nancy pelosi would be moving forward and ask the judiciary committee to draft articles of impeachment if she didn't think that she had the votes to impeach the president, and if she thought that it would blow up in the democrats' face, she has been cautious in the

past and did not want to initiate the impeachment inquiry in the first. and if she thought that it was going to blow up in their face, she would not move forward and for mike pence to say that is really i think wishful thinking on his part, and maybe cast doubt on the strength of the democrats' case here by saying, well, maybe some will defect and won't go along with the democrats are doing, but there is some hesitation of the moderate democrats of how to draft the articles of impeachment and what to include and whether to include the portions of the mueller report or keep it in the ukraine scandal, but it does not mean that there is any sign from the democrats broadly or narrowly for that matter that any are going to defect from the process. >> and pence could be playing to the audience of one as well. and you saw the president's tweet as well, and he has been slamming the process. but the president has given a sense to mount a defense and he said no. is this a distraction? >> the president has attacked

the process here, but he does not have that much ground to stand on, because he has not been willing to send anyone to represent him, and that is going to change in the trial and in the senate, and the republicans are going to be calling witnesses that they want to hear to undermine the democrats' claim, and they want to call people like hunter biden for example, and that is something we will see how plays out, and the argument that the president is putting forward here in the recent hours and days that this is all about him trying to investigate corruption, and on behalf of the national security interests of the united states, and that is a case that arguably his lawyer is going to put forward in the senate trial, and the house democrats he does not want to engage with at all. >> and liz, chairman nadler said it is possible that the vote of impeachment could come through this week, and can you walk through monday and look to the rest of the week? >> yes, so, monday is the hearing in the house judiciary committee, and that is something that is going to be seen as a trial that democrats are describing it as their chance to kind of put their whole case

coherently and cogently in one venue, and each lawyer on the democrat and the republican side will have 30 minutes to present that case like a closing argument in a trial, and then the councils on the intelligence committee will take 45 minutes to present all of the evidence, point by point through the case, and then you will have time for questions. so, this, and that is what you can expect on monday is just sort of like a courthouse scene. >> for sure. i know that, liz, youloughlen s why they should keep it to the impeachment without mueller, and some say it is going to make it more vulnerable, so how much is

the party taking this into account? >> i think that pelosi is taking it into account a lot. she is really the one who is going to make the final call on it. she is throughout the last year and a half, she has had the needs of the front line members foremost in her mind at all times, and she is often seen as taking the side of them over the more liberal squad and at the end of the day, she is going to take the concerns they have for keeping the investigation narrow seriously. >> on that point, charlie, you tweeted and in fact, we will put it up that house judiciary lawyer barry burke will make a presentation separate from daniel goldman and that is a strong sign that they will put forth an article of the obstruction of justice mueller volume two in addition to the ukraine matters, so you believe that the items from the mueller report will be included, and what do you think that the ramifications are going to be?

>> that is my speculation on burke making a separate presentation, and on that, they framed what he is going to be doing is an opening statement, and maybe he is going to talk about the abstract legal issues in that report, and they put on saturday and not get into obstruction, and on the other hand, that is a lot of time, and there are a lot of republicans, i mean, democrats including nadler who want to do that and the judiciary committee has gone into the federal appeals court here in washington in the case over the mueller grand jury evidence and talked a lot about their need to have this information, because they are thinking of impeaching trump in part for misleading mueller and for obstructing his attempts to get to the bottom of things, and so they went out on the limb if they don't. we will see what happens, but it is clear that is a live debate that loughlin does not align with that and she is one of many democrats to have a shot at that >> that is a sage interpretation, because if burke

doesn't do that, and would that bleed too much into what daniel goldman is doing, and you want to be precise and clear on all of this, and i see why you have made that speculation. this is probably a little bit more of a strategy question, but let's take a look at the ads on impeachment, just this week. all right. ads that republican-affiliated groups have aired and look at that number 4,235 and democrat-affiliated groups one. so regardless, will truth carry the day and not advertisements, charlie? >> well, i am among those who align with conventional wisdom that they will impeach, and the republicans in the senate will acquit them, and we are on a collision course for that perhaps inevitable outcome, but it does remind me what you asked of what alexander hamilton wrote in the federalist papers about impeachment in 1788 and 1789 when the constitution was ratified which is that in this political process, it may be

inevitable that convictions or acquittals in the senate will turn less on the truth of the matter and the political strength of the faction for or against the president who is under scrutiny and there is no getting around it. it is political as much as anything. >> well said, alexander hamilton. natasha, i am curious what you think of this. are the democrats falling short of the strategy, because it is up to the voters to keep the president or not, because as charlie has said and the conventional wisdom suggests that the senate is not likely to impeach him. >> yeah. so, the democrats are in a really tough spot here, because the entire message they are trying to convey to the american people is that this is not political regardless of how the process, itself, may come across as being political, the message they are trying to convey is that it is a matter of principle and many of them did not want to go into the impeachment inquiry at all, and the president forced them to with his conduct and that is something that adam schiff has said and nancy pelosi

has said and so by running the ads and advertising the impeachment process and inquiry this early, would potentially undercut their strategy here which is a strategy in and of itself to say that we trying to message this as a principled action rather than something that is going to help us in 2020. so, they are in a tough spot right now, and we will see what happens as the impeachment process moves forward, but that is where they are clearly. >> and liz, final thought about this messaging. >> yeah, i agree with democrats that it is hard to hit back on the politics of impeachment which nancy pelosi is trying to message, it is not political, and it is not political and that said, it is a political process and being outspent 3:1 on the advertising can hurt and sort of sheds light on why some of the front liners are getting nervous about the articles of impeachment, and the time line. >> yeah. liz goodwin and natasha bertrand and charlie savage, have a good

one, guys. >> thank you. what is going on behind the scenes at capitol hill? ly speak to the judiciary committee about the work they have been doing in the last few hours, and later a mystery of north korea, because they say they conducted a big test, but why is there no evidence? details ahead. s ahead. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we want you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. all: the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today. mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis

for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. 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. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

the whole process is illegitimate in the house. you don't want to create a situation where an anonymous person can start impeachment

proceedings against the president of the united states. you can't get a parking ticket based on an anonymous allegation. this is a joke of the process and dangerous to the country and this is driven by schiff and nadler and pelosi and a partisan people, and it is going to meet a quick end in the senate. >> and so, joining me now is congressman steve cohen from tennessee. welcome and thank you for taking this time, congressman, on the super busy weekend and i wanted to ask what you and your fellow members of judiciary are doing right now, and are you in the process and incubating the article to buzz the phrase. >> and so we are reviewing the information that the intelligence committee gave us and looking forward to the hearing monday and the questioning of the witnesses, and basically, it is review, and a organizational session. >> okay. >> nothing more important than we will do as members in congress than the vote on the

articles of impeachment, and it is the most important power that congress has and the sole power of protecting the american public from the president who has abused the power and a threat to the country. >> indeed. what will your articles of impeachment be that your committee will be voting on, and can you share it? you have heard jerry nadler saying that the vote could come as early as this week on that. >> that i suspect will come this week, but i don't know for a fact. we won't have the articles prepared until after the hearing tomorrow. and experts have testified on what was the intelligence committee report. we will hear from both sides and the majority and the minority and have our questions answered and until those questions are answered the articles will not be complete. >> how much are you factoring in the possibility of trying to gain republican support? >> i have tried to gain some republican support up here, and i have talked to a few members who were retiring and who are people who have expressed their

frustrations with trump publicly and thus far, i have not been able to get either of them to agree to vote for the articles, and i have told them they could be the profile in courage and the one republican who made the party look good abiding by the oath, and protecting the country from foreign interference in our elections, but thus far, nobody has broken. there are republicans, journalists, pundits and citizens who believe trump should be impeach and should be removed from office, but the folks who have a vested interest, because they work with trump get the benefits from trump and they have the base for trump have not broken ground yet. >> you have heard lindsey graham and he says this is going to meet a quick end in the senate and what is your response to that? >> lindsey graham is one of the managers of the impeachment articles against bill clinton said that he should be impeached because anything that he does that lessens the respect that the people do for the presidency and the actions in the oval office require impeachment, and he does not understand high crimes and misdemeanors because

those are offenses injurious to the nation and injurious to the power of the president and the ability to respond to the nation. sex in the oval office is a personal matter, and working with ukraine to affect the elections and use it bartering in a bi-partisan congressional funds to protect an ally from russian ruinvasion is a distinction and his past has tainted himment >> i will add to that with senator bill clinton it was issues of perjury and here obstructions of justice and obstructions of congress, and bribery and abuse of power. >> president clinton cooperated with congress as did president nixon and way beyond president trump who has totally stonewalled all of congress and told the people not to turn over documents or testify in any way

whatsoever and he has gone to court and lost in every court case what the judge has said that their proposal is out of the world ludicrous and they have ruled against him summarily, and yeah, president clinton lied, but it is something that he did between him and hillary, and it did not affect the presidency of the united states and how it relates to foreign countries and how it relates to keeping us secure from our national security strong. >> congressman, in terms of how deeply those things being considered are, your chairman jerry nadler used or mentioned evidence used in mueller's report, and let's lis lten to wt he said. >> the evidence is virtually uncontested that he worked with the russians in trying to effect the election in 2016 and then tried to cover it up. the central allegation is that the president put himself above the country several times and sought foreign interference in our elections several times both for 2016 and 2020. >> i know that congressman, you

have said that the evidence in the mueller report was damn, and so, yes or no, will mueller's evidence be its own article of impeachment? >> well, it has to be determined yet. we will probably start working on that rm tomorrow. what i think and the public thinks are two different things in this case. i think that mr. mueller gave us information that could have allowed us to go forward on impeachment on obstruction of justice on congress, but bill barr poisoned the public's mind and including some fair-minded people who would have listened to the evidence by saying no collusion and no obstruction and he said it and reiterated it and gave the trump people the opportunity to mimic the line for a couple of months and before he released the report he had a press conference and had rosenstein stand behind him like a captured attorney general and they poisoned the well. the ukraine report has not been poisoned like that, and the

republicans are trying to use procedure to fight it, but the fact is that the facts are clear, and he has abused the power, and he has tried to corrupt our process for his own sake, and in 2020 and he is injured our national security and put it at risk, so the facts are clear and we probably ought to stick with what is the clearest this ing in the public's mind and sufficient to impeach him. >> and what do you do, because what you said about yourself, you said that your opinion or what you think about this, not opinion, be what you think about this is maybe different than this public and that the presuming that you know all of the intricate details about this, and which it is a huge behemoth thing to get your head around all of the details, so how do you go about presenting a clear, simple digestible picture for the american public to get behind impeachment? >> i think that why you limit it to ukraine.

it is simple, a phone call. confirmed by several people who listened in on it and felt that it was wrong immediately and immediately said it was wrong, and talked to their supervisory officials to say this is wrong. because you can't use american foreign policy for your own personal interests and political interest, and they knew it. colonel vindman knew it, and the lady who works for vice president pence, miswell yams w and she knew it and fiona hill knew it and the facts are clear, and that is the facts are clear, and they need to make a statement about the investigation, and to not do an investigation, but to announce it. and to announce it on cnn, the president chose the news station that he wanted it broadcast to, because that must have been the focus group he was trying to get to focus to joe biden, and he obviously fears joe biden and trying to use ukraine and the idea of using an investigation in the political matter.

the constitution is about free and fair elections and not about winning the election and trump is trying to use our foreign military intermonies support for his own personal gain, and this is against the constitution, and what the founding fathers feared most. this is an urgent time, because the election is upon us. >> last question to you, sir. you speak about the clarity of ukraine and yet you talk about the inclusion of the mueller report, and it only takes one article of impeachment to be voted upon in a positive manner in the affirmative to impeach a president. it is your, it is your idea that you put up one solid versus five that each have its own merits? i mean, can you answer what the ideology is there? do you go for less or do you go for more? >> i think that you go for short and concise, because i do think that speaker pelosi has been the leader who has brought us to this point, and looked out for

the moderates, and they came forth with several of them with the op-ed in "the new york times" about their national security backgrounds and their concern about the national security of the united states, and nowimperiled it, and we have to look out for those individuals and the entire country in trying to get as much support as possible on this issue, and this is the best way to do it with a concise report on foreign interference and our national security. >> congressman steve cohen in a very busy time, and i am grateful for your time on "weekends with alex witt." >> just for you, alex. >> i appreciate that, sir. >> now we go to pensacola, florida, and that is where the fbi is going to begin the news conference of the events at the pensacola naval air base. >> i commit to the families of those killed and wounded that there would be relentless effort, and that the effort would be 24/7, and i am here today to report to you that is

what has occurred. we have the resources in place here in pensacola, and the pensacola naval air station, and they are in place, and the personnel there working 24/7 shifts to do ul after all of th to do in the investigations to get them promptly addressed and resolved. i have special agent in charge rachel rojas of the federal bureau of investigation. she is lead on the investigation of this attack. in a few moments, she is going to share with you her description of what is going on and give you a statuss a semtsz of this investigation. we have with us here today a number of folks who are critical and key leaders in the component lead agencies. so my right, we have special agent jim jewel, and miss rojas is to my right, and we have james sparrow of homeland security and investigation, and

the master general here of the military who is here to work out on the investigation. i wanted to make a comment before special agent rojas is involved here. beyond the investigation, itself, about what happened and whether to what extent other individuals or organizations were involved in the attack that occurred, we know and understand that there is concern in the community whether there is any sort of ongoing coordinated efforts or active theity by any that creates a threat, and i can say as a lifetime member of this community, i feel comfortable knowing all of the things that i know and all of the sources i have which includes all of the intelligence apparatus and everything of the federal government and without going into critical detail here at this moment, that i would be perfectly glad for any member of my family to be out in public going to stores and going to restaurants and living our lives near the panhandle, because i

believe knowing everything that i know that the community is safe and there is no immediate direct threat of any terrorist kt a acts at this time. at this time i will turn it over to special agent rachel rojas. >> good morning. thank you, everyone, for being here. thank you for being patient. i know that you had told me two days ago and i do appreciate your patience, but i as said earlier from day one, this is our chance to get it right. i am going to take my time to make sure that i get the information out here as quickly as i can, but i need it to be accurate. so i am special agent in charge of the jacksonville division, and i represent here in pensacola. my name is rachel rojas, again, for those i have not met. it is nice to meet you all today. thank you, again, for your continued efforts to responsibly cover this tragedy and get the

story right. my goal today is to convey the facts about the investigation, and my goal here is to make sure that i give you the most accurate and timely information and reported accurately in the media. today, we are in the third day of investigating this horrific attack at nas pensacola. that took the lives of three innocent victim and forever changed the lives of eight others who are thankfully, thankfully recover iing from thr injuries. last night we confirmed that the shooter has been identified as a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the royal saudi air force who

was a student naval flight officer at naval aifgations school command. while there are many reports circulating regarding the shooter's motivation and his alleged activities leading to his attack, i can tell you that we are looking very hard at uncovering his motive, and i would ask for patience so we can get this right. we have received media questions about the disposition of some of the shooter's classmates. there are a number of saudi students who were close to the shooter. and continue to cooperate in this investigation. their saudi commanding officer has restricted them to base, and the saudi government has pledged to fully cooperate with our

investigation. i thank the kingdom for their pledge of full and complete cooperation. we are as we do in most active shooter investigations work with the presumption that this was an act of terrorism. this allows us to take advantage of investigative techniques to more quickly identify and then eliminate any additional potential threats to the rest of our community. as we have stated multiple times, our investigation has not led us to any information that indicates any credible threat to our community. as we speak, members of the fbi's joint terrorism task force and the fbi's counter terrorism division are working tire

tirelilessly to discern if there is any possible ideology that may have been a factor in this attack, but they are working alongside members of our criminal investigative team as well. so we are all on the same page. no matter which direction our investigation ultimately takes, so far, the fbi has dedicated 80 special agents and task force officers and there are nearly 100 professional staff from field offices across the country for this investigation. that is in addition to the many, many resources that has been provided by the atf and ncis, hsi, fdli and numerous state and local agencies.

today, we are here narrowly focused on conductling additional interviews of the witnesses, base personnel and the shooter's friends, classmates and other associates. our main goal right now is to confirm whether he acted alone or was he a part of a larger network. we currently assess that there is one gunman who perpetrated this at a tack, and no arrests have been made in this case. there are reports that the fbi is looking for or unable to find certain individuals, but i can report that the fbi is working side by side with the u.s. navy and they have confirmed to us that they have 100% accountability on all

international students from nas pensacola. this is a large investigation and we have not completed every interview. we will continue to set up many more interviews over the next coming days, but this is not indicative of any danger to this community. this is an active and ongoing investigation, and we are seeking those facts and in order to do so, we are conducting these interviews. once again, our investigation has not led us to any information that there is a credible threat to our community. however, as always, we encourage you to keep an eye out for each other. especially after a tragedy like this one. if you see something, please say

something. and if you saw something, anything, please provide that information about the shooter that you think that might be relevant in this case. there is absolutely nothing too small. anything you have we will take every single tip seriously. and we encourage you to come forward. we have designated representatives on our tip line which is 1-800-call-fbi. and if they are available to take any information that you are willing to provide about him, where you have seen him, any of his activities, and anything that you may know, please share with the law enforcement community.

in the coming days we will rely on the partners of the multiple agencies and even just some standing at the podium here today, but we are also going to continue to rely on you, the media, and our community. the answers that we all want may not come quickly. our experience tells us that it is better to take our time and do this right rather than to rush and potentially come to inaccurate conclusions. we ask that if you wait for the facts and for us to run down any and all investigative leads so that we can all work together as one to bring justice to the victims, which is why we are here today is the loss of our victims and those that have

sacrificed and their heroic efforts at nas pensacola and that why we are here. so we can work together for them and their families. so with that, we will take some questions. >> how would you describe your relationship with the local law enforcement, particularly es m escambia sheriff's office who was first on the scene, and how critical is their information been from the first moments to today? >> as i mentioned in the remarks the relationships and the partnerships are critical. and we are grateful to escambia county and the heroic efforts of his deputies on that day were one of a kind. and we are very grateful for their response. we thank him everyday for that. we are fortunate to have wonderful partners at all level, the local, state and federal. >> i can quickly add one thing

and we will come back to you. i wanted you to know a little bit about what is happening out there. i wanted to share with you a little bit of what is happening out there on the scene, and in particular with regard to the mindset or the momentum that we developed. we came and hit the ground federally and sheriff morgan and deputy chief, chief deputy simmons, and the stories that we heard about the heroics of the escambia sheriff's deputies and the military security forces that engaged the shooter, and knowing all of the details that we know and more will come out later, it motivated all of us. and sometimes at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning at the several shifts e washift s, we wanted to salute the sheriff and chief deputy for motivating the folks who ran into that gun fire and it was a motivator and continues to be a

mote va for or the ivator for u >> and there was a report that they were watching mass shooting videos and can you confirm that or how many people were at hand? >> we have a lot of answers out there that i am not prepared to answer as we continue to investigate. there are several students who are cooperating and providing information and as we continue to vet those leads, i will provide that information as soon as i can. but i do have to have the integrityf our investigation, so i won't be answering specifics as i go through that, and we continue to share information, if i can, and as soon as i can, i have no numerous press officers in here to make sure that it is immediately as we can get that information to you, we will be sharing it. >> is there someone taking videos and you believe that there is anything nefarious about any videos that were taken? >> again, as much as i would love to answer any questions about the videos or any other

presumption of information that is out there, my goal is not to continue the misinformation campaign. i am here to just continue to gather facts, and there is a lot of review, and there is a lot of follow-up information that needs to be done, and so as soon as that information has been vetted, and it is accurate, and it can be shared, it will be. >> ma'am, can you talk about how suspect is able to get a hold of the weapon? >> again, at the gun weapon that was a 45 glock 9 millimeter that has been confirmed and he did purchase it legally and lawfully, and the atf has the process listed on the website. there is readily available public information for you to get that and how they can purchase a weapon lawfully and it is not just him but any foreign national. >> and ms. rojas, you talked about controlling the misinformation and a simple question to help clear up

misinformation. did somebody recording the shooting as it happened? >> again, there is obviously a lot of information that needs to continue to be vetted, and as you know, this is a navy base, and there are several digital media and lot of teams going on the ground and a number of reviews that needs to happen going on through the day. >> and so if it is misinformation, please clear it up for us. >> exactly. >> next question, please. >> how many students are there and how many are saudi? >> can you confirm -- >> did you repeat that? >> can you tell us when the gun was purchased and if that twitter feed that we have heard about from the intelligence agency, if that has been confirmed? >> no. >> was the gun purchased first of all. >> that is the first question. no, i appreciate the question. we are not going to go into the specifics of the investigation and the time and the dates and when and how it was purchased. it was purchased lawfully and i have told you that it is a .009

millimeter glock .45 and purchased lawfully and that is the information. >> and on social media -- >> please ask the question in the back. >> did the shooter live on base or when did he move on the base? >> those specifics are going to be shared as we move into the investigation. >> is the fbi looking at al shamani's travel who came and then left and returned in february of 2019 and can you confirm that or tell us where he might have traveled in between? >> again, these are investiga investigative leads, and obviously, we will check all travel information and we are fortunate to have numerous agencies and partners here to vet all of that information out. as the details become available, we will be sharing that information. >> sorry, can you confirm it is a glock .009 and can you tell us

where it was purchased and what state? >> i will not confirm the state, but it was florida and .009 and glock model 45. >> model 45. >> and can you tell us about the level of cooperation of the saudis that you have detained, and are they still in your custody? >> again, they are not in our custody. they are not in our custody. a lot of the individuals that were on base are cooperating with their saudi official government, and they have been instructed to follow their commander's leads. they are on base and continue to assist us in answering our investigative questions. >> this gentleman has not asked a question. >> are you investigating the shooter's background in saudi arabia and you have agents working with the saudi arabia authorities on the ground there? >> we are working with every

single national and international and domestic partner to investigate every lead. >> it is true that the saudi government has offered to pay the victims of the families for their losses? >> i am sorry, that has not come to my attention as to what the saudi government has paid or not paid. i have told you that the saudi government has pledged their cooperation and their commitment and they have done so to this date in helping us with the questions and the investigative leads that we need to do with the shooter and the classmates and the associates. >> thank you very much. >> do you believe that he acted ale loan loan alone at this point? >> okay. there you saw the members of the fbi and the homeland security and didn't give a lot of detail, but saying that there is a large investigation under way and certainly a global one as indicated by the questions and answers there. and in addition, the saudi students on base at the time, s of whom have reportedly -- were

filming, although that was not confirmed by that news conference but various reports they were filming those incidents that happened. they have been asked to stay on base by their saudi commanders. they are not in custody right now and reportedly are fully cooperating with this investigation. lots of questions to be asked and answered. that will all be coming forward in the coming days. we'll bring you the information as we get it here on msnbc. there's other breaking news to share. the president responding to north korea's claims it carried out a, quote, very successful test at a missile site. trump tweeting, kim jong-un is too smart for hostility and kim signed a strong denuclearization agreement in singapore and must denuclearize as promised. let's bring in senior fellow and korea expert at international strategic studies. we have the president talking about denuclearization but we don't know much about this alleged test itself. usually as you know when north korea does these tests, we learn

the kind of missile it was, where it was launched, detailed like that. all we have is reports from north korean state news. why don't we know more about these tests? >> i think this was a rocket engine test, it was not a missile -- a test of a missile. the point is north korea is going to do a series of provocations. and president trump was not correct when he said north korea signed onto this strong denuclearization agreement. singapore agreement was an aspirational statement working towards denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we don't even have an agreed upon definition of what dena denuclearization means. north korea is looking for massive sanctions relief otherwise they're going to turn the corner and you will see in the new year more provocations, medi medium-range missile perhaps over japan, intermediate range missile towards guam. it's going to be like 2017 -- it's going to feel like 2017

kind of crisis moment. >> it sounds like something has gotten lost in the translation by your description there. >> well, there was no agreement. >> there you go. somebody, as in the president, is concluding there was an agreement and promises made. that said, we do have word of a christmas gift of sorts. is that what you think this was? >> no. this is not -- this was just an engine test. no, they have something more -- bigger planned. so i'm already bracing myself for ruining my christmas. they certainly have more coming. as i said, it's medium range missile, even a satellite launch. i don't think they will turn to quite intercontinental ballistic missile test or nuke test. there are things north korea can do just under icbm, intercontinental ballistic missile, test. we should buckle up because -- >> something's coming? >> yes. >> do you believe they are capable of testing an icbm, testing some sort of nuclear device. you say you don't think its

coming. that's not what this christmas gift would be about but are they capable -- >> absolutely they are capable of conducting intercontinental ballistic missile. there is self-moratorium on intercontinental ballistic missile and nuke test but now north koreans are saying, hey, you know, because united states has not gwynn us a massive sanctions relief when there's no changing of the ways from the united states, we're going to get out of the self-declared moratorium and return to what they've been doing before. >> and what kind of an effect does this have on the already fragile diplomatic talks? >> well, it's going to sort of sink the talks for the next four, five, six months. my only question is let's say june, july of next year, does president trump feel like he needs to make a deal with north korea before the election? then potentially there might be a possibility for a small interim deal next year. but for a while, i predict, you know, last year we saw

provocations and a crisis like -- for the next few months. >> thank you very much. shorter than we anticipated due to what was happening in pensaco pensacola. if things get ruined for your christmas, they'll be ruined for mine as well. let's hope not. let's go now to 2020 and this from presidential candidate julian castro. >> we keep telling black women, you know, y'all are powering our victories in alabama and louisiana and you're the key to 2020, and yet we start our nominating process in two states that hardly have any black people in them. we need to change this process. and that is the challenge for the dnc. to reconstitute the effort it did ahead of the 2016 caucus and change efforts. >> there are things he and senator cory booker have said is excluding them from debates. one of two big story lines this weekend, about diversity in the 2020 race. former new york mayor mike bloomberg is also apologizing

after critics described his description of cory booker racist. to put it in perspective, joining me is kevin lewis, who worked for a decade with president obama, most recently as his press secretary. kevin, to you first about julian castro. thank you for being here. the views on the primary process and how he seems to imply it excludes minority voters. what do you think? >> thank you for having me, alex. good to be here. diversity on the campaign trail is extremely important. you get diversity and perspectives and plans from various candidates. i thought we saw a huge wealth of that at the beginning of the process. we're starting to see that trickle off at this point. i think we need to keep in mind in addition to diversity to candidates on the stage and make sure their plans are going to help the vast diversity in the

country as well. i think this is an opportunity of individuals who need a reminder of why we need to continue to be very engaged in the process because if you don't see the representation that you want, then you need to continue to make your voices heard. we also need to make sure candidates have a message that is continuing to be very creative and expanding to around the country so that they continue to be -- to qualify for these contests. >> here's something that was said by both cory booker and julian castro who say the primary process have allowed billionaires to buy their way to the stage. what do you make of that criticism, kevin? >> look, i remember being on the obama campaign five days before he announced back in 20 -- 2007. it was a very hard-fought campaign and the primary season

really strengthens each candidate so it's really hard. i don't necessarily know we need to have a process where individuals can buy their way into the process. so, that's something that, you know, i defer to the dnc and whether or not they need to look into that. but, listen, we have a very talented group of individuals who are running for president right now with a very strong ideas and a very staunch difference from what we have in the white house. i'm looking forward to see what they have to say in december. >> speaking of the white house, which president obama shared with his vice president joe biden, why do you think he has yet to endorse joe biden? he worked with him for more than a decade. you know his ideology, how he approaches things. what do you think his thinking is here? >> i think president obama owes a lot to vice president vbiden for joining the ticket back then

and serving as his vice president. as i mentioned before, president obama has experienced very hard fought primary. he doesn't to want tip the scales. he's been consistent about what his plans were go going to be post-presidency. he was going to focus on his foundation. he's hoping in working with attorney general eric holder to eradicate gerrymandering that's hurting our democratic process and he also said he was going to be a huge resource to democratic leaders within the party. giving them advice and taking a step back from the public eye to provide the space for them to kind of step into that leadership. i thought we saw great example of that in speaker pelosi when she was elected as speaker recently when folks were skeptical there. she's gone above and beyond their expectations. i think -- >> i just want -- >> again, this --

>> kevin, i believe of the 2020 presidential candidates, at least last report, most if not all say tulsi gabbard and andrew yang had sought to get a meeting with him, get his advice, where do we go from him. you make a very good point. he's going to make himself available to candidates for advice, leadership within the democratic party certainly. let me ask you about the view that he shared warning candidates against adopting the policies that move too far left. do you think when he was thinking about where he wanted to go that michael bloomberg might be what he had in mind? >> i think the president -- he has a very long view when it comes to this process. i think what he was getting at is having a clear -- making sure the candidates have a clear understanding of where the american people are. and also making sure that their plans aren't so far in any direction or so far extreme that

they are leaving out huge sections -- huge sections of the country. i don't necessarily know that he was pointing his finger at any one individual. president obama is a progressive. and in the word progressive is progress. even though we have -- he was able to get a whole lot done during his administration, he also said in that same speech he wants people to expand on that and do more on that. he's actually heartened by the ideas that are coming out throughout the process and hearing directly from -- and hearing from those folks and what they have planned going forward. >> kevin lewis, thank you for staying with us through the breaking news we had and for coming on a little later and we'll see you again. appreciate that. >> i want to make -- i want to make one more point. >> kevin, make it to us really quickly. we're already in our next hour. go ahead. >> sorry. there should be no mistake, president obama will be on the campaign trail in 2020.

>> that's a good point. that was worth waiting. thank you very much, kevin. appreciate it. for all of you, again, we're a little late at the top of the weekend with "weekends with alex witt." investigators have made zero arrest in connection to the mass shooting on the florida naval base. but there is new information. take a listen. >> we are as we do in most active shooter investigations work with the presumption that this was an act of terrorism. this allows us to take advantage of investigative techniques that can help us more quickly identify and then eliminate any additional potential threats to the rest of our community. . as we have stated multiple times, our investigation has not led us to any information that indicates any credible threat to

our community. >> let's go to nbc blaine alexander. i was listening to you ask money questions there. i imagine it's a little bit of a delay until you get the answers because we didn't hear them. >> reporter: absolutely. there were a number of questions i asked, that some of my colleagues in that room asked that we did not get answers to. they said it was still part of the ongoing investigation. chief among them would be exactly what else do we know about this shooter? one thing i think they said during this news conference that was major and worth focusing on is the fact that their main goal is to confirm whether this gunman acted alone or is part of a larger network. you just made the point and played the sound to the effect that there is one gunman in this situation and no additional arrests have been made. we do know right now they are asking questions of a number of people. they're investigating, talking to his classmates, his

associates, people who knew him and there have been a lot of questions swirling about his fellow saudi classmates. some of whom he associated with. i asked about that specifically. we've been told they are being restricted to parts of base. there were some who are close to him being restricted to parts of base. so far they are cooperating with this investigation. now, i did follow up and ask if there were other students, other americans, others under the same conditions being restricted to parts of base. didn't get answer to that question. one thing we tried to hone on is reporting from sources, pete williams and the investigative team, talking about the fact that the shooter hosted about three of his students the week before that shooting to have a dinner party and watch videos of mass shooting. a very disturbing tidbit of information. they wouldn't go into that. they would not confirm whether or not that happened. more specifically, whether any of those students knew about this attack beforehand. i asked them several times and

they said that's part of what they're trying to uncover right now. we did get a few bits of information from this press conference. we know the type of weapon that was used. it was a glock 9-millimeter. they emphasized the point it was purchased legally within the state of illinois. the gunman actually used a loophole in the law that allowed him to purchase legally. typically that's not allowed for a non-u.s. citizen but because he owns a hunting license, because he carries a hunting license, he was able to purchase that legally. something we asked about again and did not get an answer to. i'm gaggling with more officials here. we're told we could get another briefing later this evening. there were not a lot of answers that came from that news conference as we continue to try to dig into the background of the shooter and what exactly led up to the shooting. >> they're obviously trying to be very, very careful as they release the information and have it double if not triple confirmed. blaine alexander, thank you for

staying with all of that. let's go to the day's other big headlines. day 76 of the impeachment inquiry. on the judiciary committee's second impeachment hearing, democrats are split on whether to include evidence from former counsel robert mueller's report in the articles of impeachment. in prepares are under way on capitol hill to present tomorrow's full impeachment case against the president. >> the decisions have to be made based on everything we've learned until now and based on what we'll hear tomorrow. remember, some of these things are very clear at this point. there's overwhelming evidence, uncontested by the republicans that the president put himself above the country. the president sought foreign assistance in elections, sought to cover it up, completely defied participation in the congressional investigation. in order to hide his role. >> we should focus on those issues that provide the greatest

threat to the country and the president is engaged in a course of conduct that threatens the integrity of the next election. >> we'll go over all the developments in the impeachment inquiry. we have kelly o'donnell and jeff mason and axios's steph kite. we are start with you, kelly. >> reporter: the president today using his twitter feed to capture some comments of allies who appeared on the various sunday shows, highlighting some of the things that senator ted cruz said, of florida, and here going after the process and lashing out, claiming this has not been fair to him. of course, the president was given the opportunity by the house judiciary committee to send counsel or to participate and he declined. and basically that comes down to a belief on the part of the white house and some republican allies in congress that anything that is led by the democrats toward impeachment is going to

be inherently unfair to the president. that's the argument they're making. that's the argument they've been sticking with. we heard that as well from one of the president's allies, mark meadows of north carolina. here's what he had to say about how impeachment he believes would not give the president a fair shake on the house side. >> there's a big difference between what is alleged against the president of the united states and what actually happened. because this all comes down, dana, to you know foreign aid being withheld. this boils down to one thing, dana. the democrats are looking at a partisan impeachment of the president of the united states. we see this. you'll have jerry on in a few minutes. why don't you ask him this question. why did he yesterday -- we have the hearing coming on tomorrow. why did yesterday he change the rules for impeachment? >> so, you get a sense they're fighting the rules, the process and arguing the yusunderlying ie

about foreign aid, we hear republicans say again and again, that foreign aid was released. democrats say only after the white house and the president were aware of the whistle-blower's complaints. effectively after they were caught, in the word of democrats, and then the aid to ukraine began to flow. it is a process of very different ways of looking at the same set of facts or the same process. democrats say they are fairly treating the president and with a seriousness about the purpose of what they're doing. a lot of that will unfold with jerry nadler, chairman of the house judiciary committee, saying he expects it is possible the articles of impeachment will be crafted before the end of the week. would not say the scope of those, to include things that reach back during the mueller investigation. that remains to be seen. the white house and republican allies saying at this point they think only when they get to a senate trial, assuming there is an impeachment in the house, would the president be able to get his case out fairly. that's their point of view.

>> and so we wait. kelly o'donnell, thank you for that. joining me now, jeff mason, white house correspondent at reuters and steph kite from axios. you have the president and his allies, it's all about the process. that's what they attack yet again. the white house did have a chance to defend the president, to call witnesses, to make their case, which they turned down. what's the calculation there? >> i think the calculation right now is that they just don't feel -- they say they don't feel like they're getting a fair process in the house. >> but they're not even participating. >> yeah. and that's -- that's -- the strategy there is just to dismiss it. the strategy there is to say this is not a fair process. you're out to get me and we're going to wait and get to the senate where it's a friendlier audience for this president. the senate is controlled by republicans. the house is controlled by democrats. that very clear political

difficu dilneastion is at the top of their mind. talk about the critical move in the week ahead of the white house. this president may be officially impeached by the house. it could happen this week. >> yeah. a couple things i think they're doing. number one, the president and the white house and their staff have been wanting to show the president working and doing things for the country. you're talking about the good economic numbers on friday and painting the democrats as focused on impeachment to the detriment of the country, not doing things the republicans and the white house believe they should be doing instead. i think you'll see a little counterprogramming to that extend. i also think you'll see the president watching this very closely and, no doubt, weighing in on twitter. this is consuming him, consuming the white house, despite their efforts to show they're moving on -- not moving on, per se, but doing other things at the same time. >> clearly, a full understanding

of the grievous nature. chairman nadler appearing pretty confident saying they have a rock solid case against the president. tell us about the expectations this week and what the committee hopes will come from it. >> we'll start to get a better sense of what the actual articles of impeachment will be focused on. tomorrow we expect to hear from the counsel to the house, democratic and republican counsel will give opening argument and we'll hear from majority and minority counsel to the house intelligence committee, which they'll present their case and explain the arguments for why they think the president has committed impeachable offenses and why they have not. of course, we're expecting so see a lot of the same arguments. we'll see democrats think the president abused the powers of his office for his own personal gain and he has betrayed the u.s. national security interests in exchange for the interest of a foreign government.

we're likely to see, as we've already seen, republicans again point to the process, point to the democrats having bad process for the impeachment proceedings. we'll hear them say, sure, maybe the president didn't have a perfect phone call. maybe everything he did wasn't perfect but it's not an impeachable offense and we'll continue to see these arguments play out and eventually, as soon as this week, possibly have a vote on actual articles of impeachment. >> yes, but despite this being day 76 in all of this, and it's rather late, right, if you look at it this way, there remains debate among the democratic caucus on the scope of the articles of impeachment. take a listen to what zoe lofgren said followed by chairman nadler. >> my personal view is we should proceed only on those items where we have direct evidence. and there is a lot of direct evidence relative to the abuse of power and ukraine and the russians relative to the biden

investigation. the mueller report is a report. we don't have direct witness testimony. >> we're going to have to take a lot of considerations into account. why does the level of proof at the various allegation, how do they relate together? what is the level of support in our caucus and in the house for them? what might we persuade the senate of? >> steph, is there any incisigh into which way democrats are leaning? this is especially consequential for democrats, the 31 who won in the last midterm elections in trump districts from 2016. >> yeah, and this has been a debate within the democratic party for a while now. since the early days of the impeachment inquiry, whether they were going to focus on these new revelations in regards to ukraine and the ukraine phone call or whether they should include some of the findings from the mueller report. as you said, we've seen chairman nadler indicate they're at least considering including aspects from the mueller investigation

in their articles of impeachment. ven of course, you have to remember democrats have been fighting for impeachment in the house and most of these times have focused on the mueller report. whether they're going to include that angle or not is still up for debate. as you pointed out, there are moderate democrats who are a little bit more hesitant about moving forward with articles of impeachment and it seems to them they should keep it focused on ukraine, keep it focused on what they have seen firsthand, keep the narrative focused. make it easier to explain to folks in their district, this is why we're voting for impeachment or why we're not. >> jeff mason, steph kite, shorter than usual. that was because of the pensacola presser. thank you. more now from house judiciary chair jerry nadler pressing his case on the president's misdeeds. >> is it fair to say this impeachment, in your words from back then, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in

our politics for years to come? >> no. i think what puts bitterness and divisiveness in our politics is the conduct of the president who questions the patriotism of people who don't agree with him, who calls political opponents human scum. if we're going to impeach the president, we'll impeach him on adequate, urgent grounds to defend our democratic republic. >> if there's no republican votes, so be it? >> it's up to them to decide whether they want to be patriots or partisans. >> joining me is chris, susan del percio. welcome to you both. susan, what do you think of nadler's comment? does he appear to be trying to win hearts and minds? >> i think he's just going through the motions at this point. he knows pretty much where the conference is. representative nadler is -- in fact, has been a pretty divisive person in politics when it comes to an r&d fight. i think he is painted a little

more in that brush. at the end of the day, when it comes down to the articles of impeachment, there is a strong case there. and nancy pelosi will make sure that that moves forward. and he will do, in his words, an adequate job. i think that is one way he described the process. >> does he need to win hearts and minds at this point or is this process, by nature, hopelessly a refrekz of our partisan times? >> well, look, you saw the way the speaker spoke about this issue last week. she did it in a solemn way. it was not celebratory, it was notgleefulness. she understands the historical importance. she is trying to build as strong and legal factual case as possible. the theory is if you can do that, you can hopefully win some hearts and minds. it's unfortunate that in the polarized way we live in right now. on one hand you can say there's

more support for impeachment than there was for richard nixon at this point and bill clinton. the fact is, that's as much a reflection of the polarized media landscape, the polarized political landscape we live in. so i think partisans on both sides will be basically where they were at the beginning of the process. i think there is a swing group of people in the middle, the independents, maybe 10% or so, that can be moved based on the factual and legal case democrats make. >> do you think this could be a case of the president not winning on the fact he's not trying to change the narrative? it's been remarkably successful the way he tries to pivot and do that. that's a strategy that's worked for him. if that is the case, how do democrats counter what the president says, oh, this is a failed process and own though, by the way, he's been asked to participate and he said no thanks. >> that's exactly right. they've been complaining about process from the moment the depositions began in the house intelligence committee and every time they get an opportunity to participate, they choose not to. the only thing you can assume is

they would rather make their case in right-wing media and hopefully fall back on the senate. i'm not confident they're going to put forward any meaningful defense in the senate either. they know they have the votes there. they'll put a half-hearted defense out there. say the senate acquitted them and continue to make the political case out of this. i think that's a mistake and i think it reflects the reality. if they had a defense to put forward, they would be putting forward those witnesses. they just don't have the facts on their side. >> can i ask about the democrats from the districts that the president won in 2016, those that won in the midterms in 2016, are they as committed to impeachment as republicans or iron clad against you? you first, chris and then you, susan. >> i think they're waiting to see how the facts are. what i found notable was seven democrats -- with the national security backgrounds that wrote that really compelling op-ed in "the washington post." i think these are people like abigail and alyssa who will be carefully weighing the facts. we should not prejudge the

outcome. >> 100% a good thing, to be weighing it seriously. susan, your thoughts on these 31 who were in these districts that went for trump, they won them narrowly or not. how close attention do they have to pay attention to this? >> i agree with chris. they have to do what is the right thing. that's why they were elected. i don't think it will have the impact if they vote for impeachment that others do. i think they can survive that given how unpopular president trump is in those swing districts right now. they were elected in big numbers in 2018. that has not changed from what we've seen in 2019. i think they can survive that and they should do what they think is right. all the facts are there. the president committed crimes. he used his office for political gain. that is clear. and the other point is the president won't show up for these impeachment -- participate in the impeachment trial or in

the hearings because he doesn't have to. he has a twitter account. that's how he'll choose to respond. >> susan, joe, great chatting with you. meanwhile, lindsey graham is arguing against impeaching the president ahead of tomorrow's house judiciary committee hearing. >> the whole process is illegitimate in the house. you don't want to create a situation where an anonymous person can start impeach proceedings against the president of the united states you can't get a parking ticket based on an anonymous allegation. in is a joke of a process. it's dangerous to the country. this is being driven by schiff and nadler, pelosi, partisan people and i think it's going to meet a quick end in the senate. >> joining me now, democratic congressman peter welch with a welcome to you. your reaction to senator graham, that this is a joke of a progress, it's going to meet a quick end in the senate. >> it's absurd. what he's saying is this is all hearsay.

the fact is the main evidence is the president's own words. he released that transcript where in that call with president zelensky he said, do me a favor, though. that favor was to do investigation on hunter biden and joe biden and also to promote that theory of totally repudiated that it was ukraine in 2016 that interfered in our elections. so it's not hearsay. the words we're hearing were from president trump himself. >> so, when you hear senator lindsey graham, who's been a member of the senate for a number of years, do you believes this process is a joke or is he just that loyal to the president? >> well, it's hard to believe he believes what he said because there's no basis for whatsoever. and he's sticking up for the president. the defense has not been at all, at all to address what we all know is a fact. the president made that request for a favor. and it's been documented by

these other extraordinary witnesses, public servants, like fiona hill, like lieutenant colonel vindman, that the agenda of the ukraine policy was being led by rudy giuliani and it was to achieve the ferocious effort the president was making to have them assist him in the political campaign in 2020. gen against who he thought would be his most competitive rival, vice president biden. they don't address that at all. also the president has been invited to send in his representatives, to testify if he wants. he adamantly refuses. he uses social media and basically attacks the process. he attacks some of these patriotic witnesses like colonel vindman, like fiona hill. it's obviously, i think, a real tell that he doesn't have anything substantive to say because if he did, he would. >> congressman, let's take a look to tomorrow's hearing and

what happens on tuesday. do you think by that date the house judiciary committee will be ready to draft any articles of impeachment? >> i think they're pretty close. they really are. yes, i do. you have the factual basis that was established in the intelligence committee. i think most of the focus is the effort and the responsibility that we have to convey the constitutional urgency of proceeding. the constitutional urgency is based on two extraordinarily important bedrocks which has allowed our democracy to endure. one is no person is above the law. that's essentially what's at stake here. is president trump above the law. and the answer to that has to be, no. the second is, our system of checks and balances. we have had three branches of government competing and checking one another throughout our democracy. in his wholesale refusal to

participate in the impeachment inquiry, in his refusal to acknowledge the constitutional authority of the house to do that, the president is wanting to crumble this doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances. nixon hated impeachment. clinton hated impeachment. both of them had chiefs of staff and high officials testify they all produced documents. president trump has absolutely refused to produce them. by the way, that's an area i get concerned about my republican colleagues. the shoe at some point could be on the other foot. how is it we in congress with article one responsibility, to stand up for an institution as part of our democracy, let it wither? >> congressman, as i listen to you, you're making an extraordinarily clear, compelling argument and i wonder what is it that your gop colleagues in the house and those? the senate, gop members, what is it that they're not hearing? what is it they're not getting about what you have just clearly, concisely laid out?

>> you know, this is the lament i have about our current political situation. we're in this world where people feel they're entitled to the facts as they want them to be. and that, by the way, means even if there is an impeachment of president trump that goes all the way through the senate, we're still going to face what i think is a threat to our democracy where there's no capacity to agree on foundational facts. and there has to be mutual trust and mutual respect. ultimately to solve very difficult problems. politically it's very tough for my republican colleagues. i want to say that candidly. they're in districts where many cases 93% of republicans are adamantly opposed to impeachment and aren't particularly interested in the merits of what i just laid out. why it's so important for us to take a fresh look at this. there's real peril for them. so, they're being tested in a way, frankly, that democrats

aren't. it's different than the nicks. years where we had howard baker and not mitch mcconnell in the senate. where we had people that came forward and said, what are the facts? any republican who peeks his head up to take a fresh look gets a twitter attack and gets denounced. it's very tough for them. >> peter welch, very glad for this conversation. thank you so much for joining me. >> thank you. coming up tonight at 9:00 on msnbc, "impeachment: white house in crisis," ari melber previews the impeachment. tonight here. fierce fighting among 2020 democrats. the intensified battle over diversity and big money. wow! 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.

it is day 76 of the impeachment inquiry, which not surprisingly was the top subject on the sunday talk shows. here's a quick snapshot. >> the whole process is i will ledge ma the in the house. it's not just the whistle-blower. you don't want to create a situation where an anonymous person can start impeachment proceedings against the president. >> we have a very rock solid case. >> this all boils down to one thing, dana, the democrats are looking at a partisan impeachment of the president of the united states. >> if presented to a jury would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat. >> what is so dizzying, george, is the evolving standard for impeachment. >> this is a classic example of an impeachable offense. >> schiff is doing a lot of damage to the country and he needs to stop. >> the focus is on the president's misconduct. we have to move forward with these proceedings. >> what allegation are you -- >> certainly, abuse of power.

it might be abuse of -- obstruction of congress. >> no one's going to blame any of you if you have a bit of a whiplash effect. let's get to 2020 today. less than two months before that first primary in iowa. 2020 candidates coming off a tumultuous week of acciarimony accusations. as the field narrowed by three, julian castro and cory booker both coming on msnbc to talk about diversity in the democratic caucus is the party's path to the white house. >> this primary does not live up to our values the way we do it doesn't live up to our values as democrat. we constantly, constantly go after republicans like we should because they try to suppress especially the votes of people of color. >> whoever the next candidate is, they better have an authentic connection with african-american communities. >> and we're hitting the trail with nbc's vaughn hillyard, covering the buttigieg in iowa.

ali vitali is with the warren campaign. ali, i know you were with president trump last night, senator elizabeth warren today. you're a busy lady. what can you tell us about how trump is reacting to warren's presidential campaign? >> reporter: juggling both beats a little bit. you know president trump is someone who can telegraph where his attention is at. frankly, for all these democrats, they're going at each other right now, but they're barrelling towards that eventual contest against the. the. we know president talks about what's on his mind. it seemed like last night, that was senator elizabeth warren. take a listen to what he said. >> you're not going to vote for the wealth tax. yeah, let's take 100% of your wealth away. no, no, even if you don't like me. some of you i don't like at all, actually. and you're going to be my biggest supporters because you'll be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get it. >> reporter: and, alex, the

president exaggerating. warren's wealth tax is 2% over $50 million. that's 6% if you have wealth more than $1 billion. it gives you a sense of how the president paints with broad brush strokes when he's on the campaign trail or just doing events like he was last night in florida. this is how he's going to go at so many of the democrats in the field. a little preview of how he would go after senator elizabeth warren on one of her signature issues. i'm interested to see if on the campaign trail in south carolina, warren has anything to say about what's on the president's mind or if she has anything to say about south bend mayor pete buttigieg, who she's been talking about on the campaign trail. fits her larger message of anti-corruption because she's pushing pete on transparency effectively, challenging him to open up the private fund-raisers he does, to release the names of bundlers as well as pushing him to release specifics of the work he did at the private consulting firm buttigieg. buttigieg saying he can't do

that because of a nonclosure agreement but pressure mounting on that campaign, in part from warren. >> i have to tell you, as i listen to the president, the first thing that came to mind is there's pinocchio of glenn kessler of "the washington post" as he does the trump fact check. now let's move on to vaughn following pete buttigieg in iowa. as ali was mentioning, buttigieg and warren had their own tit for tat this weekend. what are voters saying about th that. >> reporter: i think the interesting thing is voters in iowa are specifically trying to decide between pete buttigieg and elizabeth warren. i talked to several of them at this event. we're in washington, iowa. this is a community of just a little more than 7,000. we're at a middle school. you can see pete answering questions. when i talked to iowans, one of the questions just posed was, why did you decide to run? there's a lot of efforts to understand the nature of who these individuals are here.

i want to let you hear from a couple of voters we talked to. we had that conversation about transparency, debate over nda with mckinsey, his fund-raisers and elizabeth warren only disclosing her tax returns to 2008. i asked a couple of voters and you can hear from them yourself. what have you made of the transparency debate between buttigieg and warren? >> i haven't read enough about it or seen enough about it. >> reporter: what have you made of this transparency debate between warren and buttigieg this last week? >> i don't know. i don't know. i didn't see it. >> i think transparency is really important and i would like to see more of that from the buttigieg camp. i think that would be really fantastic. it's really important for us to know who's funding our politicians. i really appreciate what warren has done. >> reporter: that second to last woman you just heard from, alex, she was telling me she's still

trying to decide between elizabeth warren and pete buttigieg. i asked on policy fronts, you're dealing with elizabeth warren who has taken much more of that big medicare for all position versus the more moderate position that pete buttigieg has taken. oftentimes we think, someone has to be deciding between warren and bernie sanders and buttigieg and biden. what you realize on the ground here, folks are looking for that personal connection. and i think she specifically said coming from her midwest roots, a small city, connects more with pete buttigieg and yet admires the story and the life and the policy positions of elizabeth warren, which is how she's trying to decide between those two. obviously, she was paying a little more attention perhaps than others to the day-to-day here. that's sort of the conversation taking place eight weeks out. >> vaughn hillyard, thanks so much. as we have pete buttigieg's voice resonating behind you. thanks. also to you, ali, in south carolina. we're learning more about

the president's company and how it's allegedly relied on the work of undocumented immigrants for years. dozens of them have come forward and shared their experiences of working at the trump organization, mostly as housekeepers, groundskeepers, stone masons. "the washington post" led to five questions about president trump's use of undocumented workers. joining me is david fahrenthold from "the washington post" and msnbc analyst. david has given his very deft style, the co-author of this style. welcome, david. i want to run through five questions you lay out. we'll try to get the most in the time we have. first up, how many trump businesses employed undocumented workers and for how long? >> we know of at least 11, and that includes a number of golf courses that employed undocumented workers as house keepers, groundskeepers, and also includes a number of places that were literally built by undocumented workers. the president's summer white house at bedminster, and member of the clubs employed as stone

masons, construction workers, mar-a-lago, the d.c. hotel. the place we focused on the -- most in the story was bedminster because trump lives there so much of the year. we talked to two undocumented women who were house keepers and were as close to trump in that environment as members of his family. they were in his bedroom, bathroom, and dealt with the minutia of his life, even though they were undocumented. >> we went through a bit of that yesterday, including the 2 1/2 boxes of tic tacs he wants in his drawers. did trump or his company know undocumented workers were being hired? >> so many things with trump, there are two answers. one is what did he say? he says he didn't know. the trump organization said they were surprised to learn late last year there were undocumented workers and an audit revealed there were a lot more. if you talk to the workers, it's a totally different story, and he say the managers must have known. the people that dealt with them

knew. in some cases my manager said, your fake documents aren't good enough, go back to queens and buy a better one. the workers we talked to had no doubt the people directly above them understood what was going on. >> which brings to number three, what legal consequences has the trump organization faced for its use of undocumented labor? >> pretty minimal. the department of homeland security hasn't said if they're investigating but they have given all the signals they are not. the new york state and new jersey departments of labor have looked into allegations that these workers are being mistreated. new jersey attorney generals have also looked into qul immigration laws were violated. those investigations are ongoing. sometimes these things take a long time. the trump foundation took a long time to get to consequences but there haven't been any consequences on the legal front so far. >> what consequences have the workers faced? >> the workers have lost jobs. in some cases they walked away from jobs. in some cases they were fired and found it hard to find other jobs. none of them have been deported. that was the main worry that

they and their attorney had at the beginning that they would be -- i.c.e. would be used as retribution and they would be deported. that hasn't happened in any of the cases we've looked at. question five, would a wall have stopped the undocumented workers from coming to the united states? >> it's kind of a mixed bag. talking to these workers about how they got to the united states, are there's lots of different stories. some flew on an airplane. a wall wouldn't stop that. some rode on top of a freight train over the u.s. border. some of them swam the rio grande. in some cases they walked across the border. in some cases they came over legally through some other means and overstayed visas. the broader story with immigration, a border wall would have stopped some but not all certainly. >> david fahrenthold, good to talk to you. next, why is the fbi investigating the shooting in pensacola as an act of terrorism but they're not calling it terrorism? ♪

♪

breaking in this hour, the fbi investigation, if the mass shooting at the naval air station in pensacola was an act of terror. take a listen. >> this is a large investigation. we have not yet completed every interview. and we will continue to set up many more interviews over the next coming days. but this is not indicative of

any danger to this community. this is an active and ongoing investigation. >> joining us now is senior adviser at the center for strategic international studies and the former national deputy security adviser to george w. bush. let's get into this one here. you heard them say the fbi, this is not an act of terrorism but yet is investigating it as such. what's behind that, can you explain? >> sure. i think the difficulty in these cases, obviously, it's a terrible tragedy. and has all the earmarks of what an act of terror would look like, but for purposes of the criminal law, for what the fbi is investigating and what a u.s. attorney would ultimately charge, you have to prove the intent of the individual, the mindset of the individual for purposes of the definition of terrorism. the definition of terrorism under criminal law requires you to prove there was an intent to coerce or affect civilian population, the policy of a

government or to change the government. there's a political motive that they have to look at. and that's why these international terrorism cases often look at what the underlying ideology or motivation looks like. no doubt the fbi is looking at the perpetrator's communications, his relationships, what may have changed over time to actually motivate this act of horrific violence. the intent defines whether or not it's an act of terror under criminal law. it's not what we think of normally given the scope or scale of the consequences. >>. >> as a security expert, national and international, what concerns you about what happened in pensacola? >> i think there are a couple of problems. one of the reasons the fbi begins to look at these cases in the first instance as an act of terror, even if they don't have definitive evidence that the intent was to change the conduct

of the government or influence policy is because in the post-9/11 environment the fbi and u.s. security services act in a preventive way. that is to say, you want to make sure that nothing is afoot, that this wasn't part of a broader conspiracy or plot, this isn't part of a broader trend, idealogically or otherwise. the one thing that concerns fbi and national security officials, no doubt, is this indicative of something else? is there something else there in pensacola? is there something else around those being trained from foreign military services that we haven't seen or looked at? are there my communications, for example, from the islamic state or qutal qaeda affiliates into these kind of individuals? that's one thing generally you would worry about. the second thing is are we doing enough in vetting of foreign military personnel we're training? there's extensive vetting that happens by the host government as well as by the u.s. military.

but is that ongoing vetting? is there ongoing monitoring? the interesting question, this individual was here since 2017. what changed over time? how was he potentially radicalized? who was influencing him? with whom was he communicating? those are questions that need to be answered and need to be looked at not just in the case of pensacola but nationwide. >> we have heard that the night before the killer was watching mass videos of killings with others. what does that tell you? does it suggest there may be others out there? i want to reiterate that that was not confirmed by the fbi that has been, in that news conference you listened to, but it has been out there reported in multiple different places. >> right. i think the troubling part about that reporting, but it's not confirmed. if it's confirmed, the troubling part, with whom was he communicating that? what was the context of the conversation? was he signaling that he was plotting something and why didn't others who were in the room with him, perhaps other

saudi nationals, other trainees, maybe non-saudis, why didn't they raise an alarm bell? there's going to be a lot of questions around that. i think it's a broader set of questions about what was this individual doing? what was going through his mind? again, this isn't the first time we've been through this. the ft. hood tragedy, lots of questions about what was happening in the mind of t perpetrator, whether signals could be seen and if alarm bells should have been rung by those around him. >> you mentioned the saudi government and their vetting process. what more can the government do to help? >> usually you have foreign military officers that are the best of the best, the cream of the crop, those the foreign military, whether the saudis, egyptians, pakistanis, whatever government wants to see promoted, wants to have good relations with the u.s., wants to establish deep ties.

these programs aren't just about training pilots to fly american airlines. it's about building ties between the militaries. the host government has to pick individuals they think are going to be important leaders in their structure, that they want, in essence, to be military ambassadors with the united states and i think in particular there have been questions with saudi arabia, with egypt, with pakistan, whether or not there's enough vetting internally to make sure there aren't individuals who are being radicalized by those in their environment, the islamic state followers, al qaeda and others. they have to make sure those individuals aren't being radicalized or don't have propensities to be radicalized so we don't have to worry about someone shooting our sailors or soldiers on our forts and bases. >> thank you always for insights on what is a sobering conversation between us. hillary clinton unplugged.

her new comments about bernie sanders and her warning for 2020. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

bill and i are sitting with george and laura bush. and then he started on that speech, which was so bizarre. and that's when i got really worried. that carnage in the street and the dark dystopian image.

i was sitting there, wow. and george bush says to me, well, that was some weird [ bleep ]. >> that made a bunch of us laughing. hillary clinton recounting that pretty funny moment on what she said was the hardest day of her life. she spoke to former shock jock howard stern on sirius/xm there. joining me now, adrienne elrod, and msnbc elrod, and msnb republican strategist. you guys all must have laughed at that one. i mean, i think we could all relate to that one adrian, you know hillary clinton very well. this was an unusually long and casual, up close and personal interview for her. are we witnessing a rebranding and if so, how do yo >> i thinks the hillary clinton as a private citizen sharing her

views that millions of americans want to hear. i love the format. we were talking about it in the green room before we went on air. two and a half hours of long form conversation ranging on a number of topics. and some of the answers that we've heard hillary clinton discuss before in this interview we've heard in previous interviews, but i think to have it all together and i encourage everyone to listen to this, it's two and a half hours. you can find it online, but to hear her views on a range of things from obviously that moment that you just played of her at the inauguration day for president trump to just how she wasen feeling the night that sh lost the election to where she -- her views are on a number of foreign o policy issues as she's confronting our country right now, it's a powerful interview, and i'm so glad she did it. >> i've got to say the fact she showed up atac the inauguration when people said don't go, it was a difficult loss for her, she went inor her role as a forr first lady, not secretary of

state. secretaries of state don't normally have to attend inaugurations. fill leap, you worked with her. what do you make of the timing and the things she opened up about? >> the o timing is because she' selling a sbook, and there's n one who is going to help sell a book better. you know, to me what's interesting and again, like adrian, we have been blessed or whatever you want to call it for nearly two decades hearing her say this. i could have listened to her all day because it was just the packaging of it. but what's interesting to me is tomorrow if she were to say you know what? i'm jumping into the 2016 race, the thrill of the howard stern interview would have lasted about 72 hours. because the media and the columnists would be like not again. and you know, look, she could have done five howard stern interviews in 2016, you wouldn't

know it because we'd be talking at email, email, it's not as simple as trying to show, quote, theo real her. people who have been around her know the real her. it's very frustrating, and it's very difficult for that to come out in an atmosphere when not only is it tough in the media, but your opponent is saying that you should be in jail, that your health is so decrepe id that you're going to die at any moment. it's incumbent upon a lot of people to look at the things and decide what they're hearing from her is good and important. now it's in a vacuum. it's easier. >> what do you think about what he's saying, noelle? she's revealing things and being open and honest, yet if she said she was in the race, everything would pivot to the email controversy, for example? >> he's right. especially me coming to you from

the republican point of view objective. yeah. i mean, business as usual if she gets back into the ring, they're going to pick up the same narrative where they left off, email and different shenanigans the media likes to focus on. the media likes more controversial click bait material than they do feel good stories, but i also agree with adrian and phillipe that this made her seem more relatable and connectible. that was one of herle problems during the campaign. >> there was another problem she was having as she was campaigning. take a listen to how she responded to questions about bernie sanders at the end of the campaign. >> do we pate bernie sanders? >> p no. i don't hate anybody. >> he heard me. but going back to the indictments -- >> have you ever spoken to bernie about it? >> no. >> you talk to him? >> i don't talk to him.

i mean, we did when he finally endorsed me. >> but you're upset with him? >> disappointed. okay. so -- and i hope he doesn't do it again to whoever gets the nomination. once is enough. >> you guys each get 15 seconds to comment. adrian, you first. >> yeah. look, alex, i'm glad she made this point. it did take bernie sanders a long time to endorse hillary clinton and a long timee to ge out of the race and a long time to actually go out and campaign for us. i think the point she's making is no matter what happens in 2020, i do hope that bernie sanders if he's not the nominee will endorse whomever is nominee is. i'm glad she made that point. >> don't forget she's been on both sides of this. hillary was the nominee in 2016. the only people in hindsight who think bernie did enough for her is bernie and his supporters. but she also lost in 2008 to barack obama in a far more difficult race that went wire to wire, and barack obama and his

supporters went from being dubious about her and maybe not even positive about her. there's no one who would say she didn't do enough. she did more events for barack obama in 2008 than sarah palin did for john mccain. >> point well taken. >> i don't think that the bernie sanders -- i think the endorsement came late, but it should have come late because their policies are not at all the same number one, and the dnc did not help bernie sanders when they were upwh against hillary clinton. >> all right. i'm sorry that's it for right now. good to see you. see you again soon. >> thanks. it's just a moment from now. the latest word from pensacola, florida where the fbi is still searching for a motive in friday's shooting. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body,

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

ask your doctor about ibrance. for a limited time, get a outb4-course meal your holidays even better! starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! and try our everyday lunch combo starting at $7.99! creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in.

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

that's it for me. have a great week, everybody. i'm going to toss it to kendis gibson. >> good to see you. busy afternoon ahead. live at msnbc world head quarters in new york, we're following development news at this hour. the breaking news at this minute was it an act of terrorism? the fbi giving an update moments ago on the deadly shooting at the naval air base in pensacola. authorities say they are working under the presumption the attack was an act of terrorism. but still don't know if the saudi gunmanct