goods. china's finance ministry announced it's going to lower tariffs on over 850 products ranging from frozen pork to some types of semiconductors. that wraps up the hour for me. i will see you back here 9:00 p.m. eastern for "the rachel maddow show." you can always find me on social media. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for nicolle wallace. senate democratic leader chuck schumer is putting the white house, its budget office, and the state department on notice, demanding they hand over vital documents related to the impeachment inquiry. schumer writes there simply is no good reason why evidence that is directly relevant to the conduct at issues and the

articles of impeachment should be withheld from the senate and the american people. to oppose the admission of this evidence would be to turn a willfully blind eye to the facts, it would clearly be at odds with the obligation of senators to do impartial justice according to the oath we will take in the impeachment trial. schumer also raises the need for witnesses to appear in the trial. it's another point of contention this afternoon. speaker nancy pelosi holding onto the articles passed by the house in order to ensure a fair trial. but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell seems like he's trying to call her bluff. >> first things first. are you surprised you haven't been handed the two impeachment articles from the speaker? >> yeah. i mean, believe it or not, it has to be physically brought over to the senate. and we can't go forward until the speaker does that. she's apparently trying to tell us how to run the trial. you know, i'm not anxious to have this trial. so if she wants to hold onto the

papers, go right ahead. >> as if to prove the points why democrats are so keen to get documents and witnesses, and perhaps why republicans seem so loathed to provide them, considering what we learned just this weekend. previously secret emails between the white house budget office and the pentagon reveal a request to withhold funds to ukraine came about 90 minutes after president trump's july phone call with ukraine's president. in response, the white house is holding the line insisting the fact pattern has not changed. quote, it's reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call, as has been established and publicly reported, the hold was announced in an interagency meeting on july 18th. but it's getting harder to argue that this was all above board considering what a budget official told the pentagon in one of those emails. given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction. here to talk us through it all at the table columnist for "the

daily beast" and msnbc political analyst jonathan alter. jason johnson politics editor for "the root." and jackie. plus, in washington chris lieu, former senior white house aide to president obama. before that he was deputy chief counsel for the house oversight committee. 90 minutes between the end of that call and the drafting of that email from omb to the pentagon, does that strike you as suspicious? >> yeah. that's not normal at all. i worked in the white house for four years, and i staffed many presidential calls and if there's action that needs to be taken after the fact, first of all you need a summary of the phone call. you would do a follow-up meeting with staff. unless it's a truly urgent matter, that could take the rest of the day. it could take a couple days to pull together. the fact that this dictate went out from omb to the defense department within 90 minutes suggests that some be in the

oval office, the chief of staff, the president or some senior official placed that call immediately to omb to start that call. and i think this is just a fraction of the documents that we hope to see. and i think senator schumer, if he were able to get his hands on, we'd start to fill out this picture of what exactly happened. >> we are looking at this email in the context of senator schumer's letter to his senate colleagues. what type of information, what type of documents does senator schumer belief might be offered that would change the contours of this impeachment inquiry? >> well, first of all we know that there is a series of communications that would go back and forth from the state department to the embassy in ukraine. we also know that in any kind of interagency process, which is what happened here, there would be communications between, let's say, the state department, omb, the department department, and the white house as well. and we also know from gordon sondland's testimony that he said, look, i could have refreshed my recollection about meetings i had, phone calls i

had, if i could get my hands on some emails and memos. but the state department won't give them to me. and, fortunately, we started to see some of these things trickle out like this document you pointed to. but there is far more out there, and frankly, the reason why these things are being withheld is that they're probably not going to be helpful to the president. >> jackie, what is senator schumer's calculus here? we've heard a lot about witnesses now shifting his attention to documentary evidence. >> despite mitch mcconnell's claims, otherwise, this is potentially politically beneficial for democrats to apply as much pressure as possible on republicans to release documents and witnesses that they have, you know, since the house commenced their investigation withheld. "washington post," abc news poll that came out last week showed that even though republicans are overwhelmingly against impeachment of the president, they want the president to release these witnesses who were previously balked and testify in trial. i think what schumer has also,

and house speaker nancy pelosi as well, have calculated is that by calling on witnesses and calling for documents and also withholding the articles of impeachment, they're furthering this schism between senate republicans and the white house over how a senate impeachment trial should play out. you see the president wanting full exoneration still, wanting witnesses, wanting to tell a story. and you see mitch mcconnell who said last week, republicans are not anxious to have this trial. i think what chuck schumer is doing here, he realizes that in order to push public opinion, he needs to be calling for new information to come forth. >> how long does it remain tenable to hold out? >> until susan collins or until they start saying we got to go forward with this. that's really what's going on here. it's really a game of chicken between about 25 to 30 vulnerable democrats in the house and about four or five,

possibly even six vulnerable republicans in the senate. if the democrats in the house are, like, look, that speaker pelosi, we can't wait, then she's going to have to just hand over the impeachment articles. but i really think the senate's going to blink first. i really don't think they want this going that long. you don't want a senate trial to be happening during the democratic primaries. you don't want that narrative going on. >> earlier in the show, we were talking about that email that is now been shared through a foia request. and the specific language around, this is highly sensitive. why, if, as the president says, he is trying to be this anti-corruption champion, would this be deemed highly sensitive information? >> this was just part of the shakedown operation. this is not critical evidence. we already know what happened. we saw a lot of testimony about what happened. so this is kind of the icing on the cake. the reasonab it would be usefulo have it come up in a senate

trial is that trial will be dramatic and it will increase the education of the american public on what took place here from the well of the senate. we see cross examination say on this email of michael duffey. but the larger point here is the issue is not whether this is a fair or unfair trial. it's whether it's a real trial or a fake trial. real trials have witnesses and documents. fake trials have neither. so mcconnell is arguing for a fake trial. and even if he gets his way, let's say he wins because he's pretty skillful, let's say there are no witnesses and no documents. that's not good for trump because then after he's acquitted, which we all know he will be, and he says i've been vindicated, the democrats can say that was a fake trial. >> right. >> that was no vindication, that was a rigged, fake trial. so that's the problem that collins and these other republicans have. if they don't vote to allow

witnesses, they are voting on behalf of a fake trial. because every american knows, the polls show it, that real trials have witnesses and documents. >> to that point, writing an op-ed in the "new york times" insisting no one should make up their mind ahead of the trial. i would not suggest to any senator that his or her oath requires a specific verdict, whether allegations are proven at trial is an entirely separate matter. but i strongly belief that our oath requires that all senators behave impartially and support a fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above fielte to this or any other president. who is that audience? >> collins, mcsally. they're all saying, because here's how this work. it's similar to what happened with, sort of trying to end the affordable care act. all of these senators can say, look, i voted for fact witnesses, i voted for evidence. even if they then turn around and vote to acquit the president, they at least look like they took the process seriously if they get this

initial vote. mitch mcconnell can't hold out that long. they know that because so many americans already believe that this is a rigged trial. part of what's been happening because nancy pelosi did not give over the articles of impeachment is mitch mcconnell revealed we are pretty much coordinating this whole thing with the president. since the public knows that, these vulnerable senators have to look like they've at least attempted to bring justice and order to this process. otherwise the whole thing is a joke and all of them suffer politically. >> and that pressure's not just coming from democrats. there is a new ad out from republicans for the rule of law. take a look. >> key witnesses in the ukraine scandal must testify in the senate impeachment trial. these witnesses include rudy giuliani. >> so you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? >> of course i did. >> mick mulvaney. >> what you just described is a quid pro quo. >> there is going to be political influence and foreign policy. >> mike pompeo. >> rudy giuliani delivered ukraine files to mike pompeo. >> and john bolton. >> a lawyer for john bolton says that his client has new information on these meetings with ukraine. >> these witnesses must testify. call your senators now.

>> so, jonathan, pretty clear who that is aimed at. i guess my question is, is the theory that these senators go home to their districts, hear about this from so many constituents that they start to feel hot under the collar? or is it that it shakes their moral conscience? >> i think that the democrats and republicans who made that ad, they want it to be some of both. so, constituents in colorado, arizona, maine. i would also say utah where mitt romney white vote the right way, tennessee, lamar alexander is from there. they need to let their senators know that they don't want there to be a fake trial. they want a real trial. they're not asking them to vote to convict. that's likely not going to happen. >> right. >> but they do want some basic resemblance to an actual trial. and it's not that hard of a sell. remember, all of these

republican remembers, or at least mcsally, gardner, and collins, are vulnerable in a general election. there are a lot of independent and swing voters they don't want to tick off. so they could probably get away with voting to acquit. but i don't think they're going to be able to get away with voting for a fake trial. >> chris, we have talked about mitch mcconnell and his ability to hold the line on this. how much longer can the white house continue to maintain that they won't allow witnesses at this trial? >> well, look. i think they're going to try as hard as they can to get no witnesses here. and this point can't be said often enough, which is if any of these witnesses, if any of these documents could exonerate donald trump, you sure as heck believe he would put out there. after all he put out the transcript of the july 25th call thinking this would help him, and of course it did not. so i think we can safely assume that none of this information would be helpful to the president that he's withholding right now. >> there is a call for both witnesses and for documentary

evidence. where do you think we end up? where does this break? >> that is really a wildcard right now. but it does seem like chuck schumer was taking a cue from adam schiff, that he actually thinks that getting documents would be more beneficial to moving the needle on impeachment and would reveal more new information than having witnesses come forth. he pointed to text messages between kurt volker, gordon sondland, and rudy giuliani as perhaps the most incriminating evidence that came out of the house investigation and, you know, chuck schumer's letter came out today three days after schiff, you know, said as much. >> all right. >> i think they can get both documents and witnesses. remember, they have to take a vote on every one of these things. mitch mcconnell does have, as he puts it, the ball control that he has on a normal day in the senate. i covered the clinton impeachment. every time a question of the rules comes up, the senate has to vote on it. and they are claiming that there was no agreement to have

witnesses before the clinton trial. there was an agreement to have witnesses. it was just a question of how many and whether they would testify on videotape or in person. so this is doable to get both documents and witnesses if democrats hold firm and frame it right. >> all right, chris lu, thank you for spending some time with us. when we come back, us versus them. it's familiar language from the president. now he and his campaign are using it to charge up his base over impeachment. we will look at how the divide is shaping up. plus, the 2020 candidates sprinting through iowa over the holiday. but how are some of them preparing to split their time between the campaign trail and the senate impeachment trial? and new comments from john bolton slamming the president's approach to north korea. all those stories coming up. ♪

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.

after three years of sinister witch hunts, hoaxes, scams, tonight the house democrats are trying to nullify the ballots of tens of millions of patriotic americans. >> that was a little preview of the attack strategy trump and his campaign will likely rely on going into 2020. the "associated press" lays out his plan. using stark us versus them language, president donald trump and his re-election campaign have begun framing his impeachment not as a judgment on his conduct but as a referendum on how democrats regard him and his supporters. trump has considered a barnstorming tour after the yet to be scheduled trial ends hope to use a back-looking message to propel him forward in 2020.

they believe it may be the motivation to bring out voters who stayed home in the 2016 election but are fed up with the washington establishment. joining the table democratic strategist basil michael. >> it is something we heard. it's a frame that the president likes and there is a lot of us versus them. he wants us to believe in the border wall. there is the us who are washington outsiders, which somehow after four years of being president, the president is still able to frame himself as an outsider, versus all those washington insiders. when you hear us versus them what, does it say to you? >> it says that the republicans are desperate and this is a terrible message. the people who stayed at home in 2016, they weren't republicans. the republicans had incredible enthusiasm. the people who stayed at home were people who weren't enthusiastic about hillary

clinton. and there is absolutely no empirical evidence, no polling, no anecdotal evidence that says that impeachment is a turnout message. it's not. everybody feels the way they already feel about impeachment. there is no one in america right now who voted for hillary clinton in 2016 as, like, you know what, border wall, constant racism, mass shootings, i think that trump guy is a good day. so he wants to make impeachment, the ref rend rum on him, i don't think that's going to do anything to turn out his voters any more than they would have been enthusiastic anyway. >> do you agree? >> i do with this caveat. undergirding i think a lot of the conversation about impeachment is the sort of stealthy activity that mitch mcconnell is engaged in. judges, for example, while donald trump has been president of the united states, he has supported and nominated and put in place 157, if i remember correctly. >> staggering. >> judges since he's been

president. it took obama eight years to put in 55. so when we look at that number, it's important to understand that part of the democratic message shouldn't just be about impeachment, although i think that's important, particularly for the progressives. it's also about governance. it's also about all of these things that are going on behind the scenes that mitch mcconnell is engaged in. and that is what's going to drive out republicans. it's not just the us versus them with respect to impeachment. it's us versus them in terms of values, and this concept of this issue of judges plus some of the other sort of cultural issues of what's sort of driving the underneath. and that's what we as democrats need to be concerned about. >> jonathan, when i've been on the trail, what i hear most from voters about is affordability. can they afford their rent, can they afford their health care? people are very concerned with impeachment. but i wonder do you think that should lead democrats' message?

should they be focused on impeachment or should they be focused on these bread and butter issues? >> it's really hard to imagine that in september of next year, voters are going to be saying, you know, back in january, they weren't talking about healthcare, because they will have been talking about it from february to november. so there's plenty of time for democrats to bring up the issues. trump is very skillful at driving a message. he is a con man. and like great con men he is good at staying on his con. the challenge for democrats is that if it becomes a choice between who do you hate more, trump or the democrats, there are some swing voters who are going to go, you know what, trump's done a good job in making me hate democrats. >> even if it's us versus them? >> even if it's a referendum on trump, then democrats win. and right now if you talk to, like, political strategists who analyze this in a really cold-eyed way and they say who

would you rather be, trump now or the democrat? almost all of them, unless they have a dog in the hunt on the republican side, will say the democrats. structurally, this race, despite the economy, is favoring the democrats. and if you actually analyze -- like, take a poll that showed joe biden within one point of trump, in texas, the republicans are going to have to spend a lot of money to win texas and georgia. they are playing defense all over the country. and they have a very narrow path to 270 in the next election. but democrats have been so traumatized by this bully that you go to a social occasion and all these democrats are saying, oh, trump's going to win. no, we don't know yet who's going to win. >> i don't know what kind of party you're going to. [ laughter ] >> you go to parties where people say trump's going to

lose? first of all most people don't have a lot of faith in how the system's going to operate. but here's the thing we talk about, us versus them or toxicity or who's in more danger. democrats in purple districts and democrats in sort of questionable districts, they sat there and they did the calculation, who's more toxic to my constituents? nancy pelosi? or donald trump? clearly trump is more toxin than nancy pelosi because nancy pelosi was a horrible bugaboo just a couple years ago. she was the person that republicans were running against. none of this has an impact on, you know, what's going to happen with the economy. there will be other issues that come into play. but i really think republicans are making a mistake about this. there are 20 other things they can run on. impeachment is not going to work. playing the victim all the way throughs works against donald trump's brand. he is the guy who comes up with deals. and if he runs around saying i am the loser, i don't think that works for him. >> but he fits into the us versus them framework.

republicans draw parallels with the fiery 2018 confirmation hearings for supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. since the impeachment proceedings begin, the rnc has seen 600,000 new donors. they took in $10 million in small-dollar donations in just 48 hours during impeachment. why are you laughing? >> because they lost the 2018 election by 9 million votes. 9 million more people voted democratic. recently the trump campaign that's had a raw-raw cheer leading event for the trump campaign, he said we have so many people who didn't vote in the midterms, they love trump but they don't vote in midterms, they're all going to come out for us and there are 8 million of them. that's a lot of new trump voters. that leaves them a million short of what they need to win the election. they are not in a position to expand their base. this is the fundamental flaw in donald trump's political --

wouldn't call it a strategy, his instincts, which can be very smart in some ways. but his whole idea of never moving beyond that 25% base that he has, and he has another 15 to 18% of republicans who don't like him very much, but they're still republicans and they're still with him, but they're not in his base. and all that this does, the reason that the witch hunt won't hunt is all it does is appeal to that 25%. and they're already energized, they're already going to work for him. there's only so much more to turn from 10 to 11 isn't really going to do -- >> and just quickly. i do think it's important to do epthat in mind, the fact that donald trump and the republicans really can't expand their base. where i think there is a lot more depth in the democratic party. but that is the concern that for democrats to try really hard not to nationalize this race. that's why we ran and won in 2018 when he had individual

members of congress actually running these really hyperlocal races and get down to sort of what voters really do care about. but the republicans need this race to be nationalized. >> you mentioned brett kavanaugh. it failed for the republicans. >> if you flip it on its head, does this also have the potential to rile up democrats such that it's a wash? >> yeah. i mean, you could make the argument any way here. but at the end of the day i don't think we can underestimate the president's ability to brand and sell. i do think that impeachment is going to become basket of deplorables 2.0. this is a way for republicans to highlight liberal condesencion. she was going to be voting for impeachment, people almost revolted. there were fights breaking out in the audience. >> and she gave one of the most brilliant and engaged answers which is textbook for what the

democrats are going to be able to say. >> it still remains to be see what the fundraising outcomes are this quarter and if it actually is galvanizing republicans in the way that white house and brad pascal are claiming. but, you know, trump is clearly buoyed by data that this is intensifying republican support. i had one senate aide tell me last week that it would be malpractice for them to campaign based on what the polling is showing. >> if you're running in the house, but if i'm cory gardner or susan collins, she's got to make this national. because if she tries to make it local, she's done. >> we all look forward to the barnstorming tour. when we come back, the five senators running for president better be good multitaskers. we break down what impeachment means for the 2020 race. stay with us.

for months, what's going on in the capitol has followed the

candidates onto the trail. now it threatens to take some of them off the road at a crucial time. five candidates who are also senators preparing to trade precious face time with voters for long days in d.c. those voters keenl aware time with some of these candidates could soon be scarce. candidates and staff alike now trying to contend with juggling these two massive political moments. >> do you fly back and forth? have you thought about it at all? >> no one knows yet what this trial's going to look like and how mitch mcconnell is going to run it. >> my strategy is to be in new hampshire a lot. >> how do you balance that? >> we are going to have to. >> with the senators bouncing between the trail and a trial, the rest of the fields can campaign unincumbered. >> the question is not first and foremost what about impeachment. >> out here on the trail our job is to talk to voters about how their lives are going to be impacted by who's sitting in the white house. >> we have to stop being obsessed over impeachment. >> and when impeachment is on voters' minds, most candidates try to tie it back to a larger

campaign theme. >> but the way i see this is we've now seen the impact of corruption, and that's what's clearly on the stage in 2020. >> congress can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. >> perhaps the ultimate test of doing two things at once. >> my colleague ali vitali laying out the stakes for the five democratic senators running for president that will also have to participate in the still to be scheduled senate impeachment trial. of that group senator cory booker of new jersey is the only one who's up for re-election in 2020. the table is back. basil, yes, they can walk and chew gum at the same time, theoretically. i'd like to see them do it. but they can't physically be in two places at the same time. and this comes down to a scheduler on each of those campaigns deciding where they're going to be and when. if you were running one of these campaigns, how would you counsel your candidate? >> really invest in staff. you got to have some great surrogates. and if you didn't do that already, it's going to become a

problem because you're going to have folks like andrew yang and pete buttigieg in there because they don't have -- >> and joe biden who don't have a formal role in this process taking some of your valuable time away while you are doing god's work in the senate. that said, it is a process that has always favored folks with money and folks with a very strong ground game. so even with that said and even while they're in d.c., i expect folks like bernie sanders and elizabeth warren to still have a very strong presence in those early states. but it is going to be a challenge. >> and, jonathan, if you're not in that top tier of candidates, is this the moment where you really need to do the deep digging and the analysis about whether or not the risk is worth the reward? >> well, i think the ones who are still in it are going to, like, take their chances on the caucuses, which are coming up. >> yep. >> and not necessarily new hampshire but at least see how they do in iowa. why drop out at this point, you know? especially if you're not one of

the senators. but i think for somebody like amy klobuchar who has a chance to maybe emerge. she's got a little bit of momentum. but you want to be on the ground. it's really important to be in the state. so if you're in washington for a two-week trial in the middle of january, that's really a problem. and if joe biden is also beginning to get a little bit of momentum, he had a good debate, and he's there every day doing retail politics, which he does quite well, that really gives him an advantage that we maybe haven't focused on enough. >> jackie, the cost here is obvious. but there is also potential reward. if you are amy klobuchar, she had some big moments during the kavanaugh hearing when she did have the attention of lots of americans, of lots of voters. how do you turn this lemon into lemonade? >> the problem here, as ali pointed out in her fantastic

piece is that these senators have to sit in silence all day long. they can't ask any questions, they can't have any viral moments. >> just in general hard for them to sit in silence. [ laughter ] >> exactly. although mitch mcconnell seems to believe that this is a good test of their conscious for them and humbles them a bit. but for someone like amy klobuchar, that's going to mean even more limited air time. there is a possibility that they can have press conferences after these long days of, you know, these white house -- the white house lawyers and the house managers who are officiating these trials. but if there's anything that donald trump knows how to do, it's how to suck up all the oxygen in the room. and the story is going to be focused on him during a time where normally the american public would be paying attention to the first in the nation primary and caucus. >> if there was a surprise guest that could force people to pay attention, it would likely be former president barack obama. and he said he would not endorse, and yet there is this reporting from "the hill" saying behind the scenes in recent

months, former president obama has gone to bat for warren. when speaking to donors reluctant to support her given her knocks on wall street and the wealthy, the former president has stopped short of an endowment and has emphasized he is not endorsing in the democratic primary race but has also vouched for her credentials, making it clear that he deems her a capable candidate. >> the level of direct and indirect shade that obama has thrown at joe biden. everything that leaks out of his campaign, everything that leaks out of his former office is i really don't think you should do this, and this is particularly powerful given what is sort of acrimonious relationship elizabeth warren sometimes had with him when he was in the office. i don't think he's going to do anything to disrupt this process. but what i do see is this. we think of obama in one place, and mitch mcconnell and these senators who are running. wasn't it the 2000 election where george bush kept trying to get the debates during world

series? schumer is not going to get listen set up this trial in a way that's going to disrupt the primary process. if this means that we don't do anything until after super tuesday, that may be what occurs because there's not a chance that democrats are going to allow, especially if it's competitive, if joe biden and bernie sanders and elizabeth warren are all really close, you are not going to have two people get pulled out of the game just because mitch mcconnell thinks this is a good chance for us to run against the weakest candidate. >> basil, does it surprise you to hear him saying that about elizabeth warren? >> after he said that -- if anyone in lead countries said we are in a much better place, it's not surprising. he has thrown a lot of shade the way of joe biden. >> do you think that's more of a boone for elizabeth warren or a bust for joe biden? >> it's a bust for joe biden because he's running on the obama relationship. but what i will make this one caveat. if you think about the role that bernie sanders has played since

2016 in sort of reshaping rules at the dnc, reshaping rules across the country, it also favors him quite a bit because he is forcing a lot of folks including elizabeth warren to sort of run a race similar to the rules and the sort of pattern that he's already laid down. so while all of this stuff is happening, he's viewed, for right or wrong, as the most consistent sort of candidate out there. and even if obama is sort of leaning towards or giving these hints that elizabeth warren's the right choice, in some ways i still think it's going to -- in some ways it highlights that tension between her and bernie sanders. >> i do want to remind though our viewers that obama was also the person who said that our candidates should be more moderate, that voters are not in the mood for super progressive and leftist ideas and policies. >> i think he's still trying to be an honest broker. and he's essentially saying to a lot of folks that, you know, meet in new york and the coastal

elites who are -- some of them are scared of elizabeth warren. he's basically saying don't be afraid of her. if she's nominated things are going to still be okay. >> sounds very paternal when you say don't be afraid. [ laughter ] after the break john bolton says the trump administration may have to do something it rarely does, admit it was wrong.

is national security taking a backseat to president trump's personal foreign policy agenda? in the past the president has raised eyebrows trusting the word of dictators over his intelligence agencies. now just weeks after north korean leader kim jong-un promised a, quote, christmas gift for the united states, an analysis of new satellite images show north korea has expanded a factory and could be planning to test a long-range ballistic missile capable of threatening the u.s. in the coming days or weeks. this new evidence prompting

former national security adviser to the president, john bolton, to tell axios that if kim follows through on his promise, the trump administration should admit they got it wrong on north korea. bolton also saying that he does not think the administration really means it when it comes to stopping kim from further developing nuclear weapons. joining us now former assistant director for counter intelligence at the fbi, frank figliuzzi. frank, do you think we see the president admitting that he got it wrong on north korea? >> alicia, don't hold your breath on that track record on the president admitting he's wrong is zero. he won't do it. we have a president who's far more concerned about how things look than about how things really are. and he can only continue to stick his head in the sand for so long before he gets buried by that hand. and that's what's happening in the case of north korea and also in the last 24 hours, the news out of saudi arabia that five

people are going to be executed for the death of the "washington post" journalist khashoggi. those people were simply following out the orders of their crown prince. now the crown prince is ordering them executed. all of this ties together because the president doesn't want to hear from his intelligence community he doesn't want to hear from our allies and their intelligence services that, in fact, north korea, in their case, is continuing their nuclear program, is continuing to deliver -- develop the ability to deliver that nuclear weapon. and, by the way, by many reports, they're also developing a submarine capability. this doesn't fit the president's narrative. it's unpleasant for him. so he's going to come out and continue this false narrative that makes him look good. and we are all at risk because of that. >> frank, bolton also said in that "axios" interview that he does not believe the administration, quote, really means it when president trump and top officials say they vow to stop north korea from having deliverable nuclear weapons, quote, or it would be pursuing a different course.

what would it look like if the trump administration were serious about deterrents? >> well, one thing we could do is absolutely step up sanctions. but also get into military blockades. we know that technology continues to flow to north korea not only for their missile program but for other programs, including nuclear components. and if we were serious about stopping this, you would see intercepts of all these shipments. but, you know what? that upsets the apple cart for trump. it doesn't fit his personal narrative that everything -- i call this foreign policy theory don't look here, nothing to see, look away. everything's great, nothing to see here. if we start setting up ships and blockades, things look bad. he looks wrong. same for saudi arabia and the death of khashoggi. he doesn't believe the intelligence services when they say the crown prince ordered it. so he goes along with the crown prince. this is mostly about his personal agenda, his personal interest and financial investments and not about our national security interest. >> jason, i want to bring you in

here. when you have john bolton laying this type of hit on the president. >> yeah. >> does that actually change the contours of this debate at all? >> i don't think it changes the contours of the debate publicly, but it will change them privately. look, john bolton has always been much more hawkish. it's one of the reasons he is no longer in the administration. but he is speaking for some people who are still in this white house. he is speaking for some people who are still in our military industrial complex, look, this sort of personal relationship handshake pinky-swear that you're doing president trump is not really working when it comes to our national security. so i think this is going to get a lot of chatter in the white house. i don't know if that's going to change the president's behavior, but it certainly has riled up a bunch of people. >> we are in the moment where we are talking about the president's legacy in the context of impeachment. but certainly when you look at america standing on the international stage, that too will be a big part of his legacy? >> i hope frank is wrong. i don't think we should be

having military blockades. i don't trust trump as commander in chief during combat operations. i don't think trump wants that. he was somewhat against various military adventures in the last 30 years. and as long as he feels like he's going to win the election, he won't do it. my concern is if the polls show if he's going to lose the election, then he might want to put on that commander in chief hat, because there is a rally around the flag effect that presidents have experienced in the past. that would be very dangerous for this country. so i hope he just finesses it. and then to your legacy question, it could be a relatively good issue for democrats in the fall to just say this president has made a complete hash of our foreign relations, and, you know, he's destroyed or really harmed american credibility all over the world. that's not a good look for him going into november. >> frank, i want to give you the

last word here. the white house called this sentencing an important step. but last year u.s. intelligence determined that the saudi crown prince ordered khashoggi's assassination. what does it mean for the united states? what is the message that is broadcast when saudi arabia decides to shield their crown prince from liability in this? >> well, it means that other countries are going to feel the license to do whatever they want, including human rights and civil rights violations. you want to murder a journalist who is opposed to your regime? go right ahead. if president trump has a personal or financial interest in your country or a personal relationship with your leader, you're going to have the license and freedom to do what you want. that's a national security problem. the same goes for russia and vladimir putin, and we're just seeing a president gotvern by self-interest, not national interest. after the break,

politicians, construction and wind mills? everything donald trump knows best, next. [ battle sounds ]

if you don't get there in time, it will be a massacre. good luck.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. we'll have a -- an economy based on wind. i never understood wind. i know wind mills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. i know it's very expensive. >> that was donald trump, who over the weekend took a break from impeachment talk to rail against wind mills. adding yet another thing to the list of stuff he knows better than anybody.

>> all my life, i've dealt with politicians. i know politicians better than anybody. i'mcate i i'm the king of banking. >> nobody knows more about construction than i do. >> nobody knows more about trade than me. >> i know more about isis than the generals do. believe me. >> jason. >> yeah. he's got the best brain. he's got the -- >> he knows a lot of stuff about a lot of things. >> i will say this. there is something, if you are -- if you are looking for leadership, there is something oddly comforting about someone who will constantly tell you that they know what they're doing and how to do it. it does not work for me. it doesn't work for the majority of the country. but there are lots of people out there that like that sort of just effusive sort of carnival parker confidence. >> jokes aside, there was also some misinformation in here if you can believe it. >> quite a bit. >> you think? >> yeah. if you're watching, mr. president, wind energy's actually become one of the biggest job creators in the u.s. according to the american wind

energy association, over 114,000 u.s. workers have been employed by wind factories, 500 of which have been created across the united states in the past few years. even more so, a statistic the president would really like is actually the wind industry employs veterans at a 67% rate more than other industries. >> this tirade went on and had to do, i think, with the fumes that are created by manufacturing windmills. which is curious given the president's general stance on climate change. >> and fossil fuels. i mean, he didn't know what he was talking about at all in those remarks. and, you know, he also doesn't know how many states have a lot of wind power. texas, which he may be, as i mentioned, you know, in danger of losing. >> do you really believe that? >> i -- i think -- so there are -- i think the figure is more than 300,000 more latinos will be living in texas in 2020 than in 2016. everything is bigger in texas.

and, yeah, they have a long way to go. if i had to bet, i would bet that trump would win texas. but he could get pinned down there. and they have a lot of wind energy in texas. everybody thinks it's just oil wells. they're talking about old news there. and so -- and i don't think that he is wearing very well with this know-it-all quality. there is a trump fatigue that helps the democrats. and, you know, somebody compared joe biden to the designated driver. you know, there's -- there's -- there's a scenario where the american public might not want an exciting new leader who is going to exhaust them in new ways. just somebody to drive us home so that we can talk about something else other than donald trump for a change. >> by the way, about a 1% -- 1% of the population of california has moved to texas. so migrations do help. i just want to make an argument for science and schools and money and research. because, please, we can't have this continue. >> thank you for that. stay with us. we'll be right back.

he lllo, i'm danny thomas. many years ago, i made a fantastic promise to build a shrine. and the shrine is going to be a hospital for children. and free.

my thanks to jonathan, basil, jason, and jackie. "mtp daily" with kristen welker in for chuck starts right now. welcome to monday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm kristen welker in new york in for chuck todd. we just got another indication that this last full week of 2019 is going to be a pretty good preview of what to expect in the first few weeks of 2020. a partisan battle over looming impeachment trial in the senate, a battle that continues to be waged over the terms of that trial. just moments ago, we heard from senate minority leader chuck schumer, who called on president trump and senate majority leader mitch mcconnello