shalom. >> she got it. >> bird man also said and this is fitting are we finished or are we done? >> that's so profound. >> all right, that does it for me. i'm going to see you here tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern filling in for lawrence o'donnell on the "last word." "hardball" is next. trump outs the whistle-blower. let's play hardball. good evening i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. president trump capped his holiday week with a barrage of twitter attacks on house speaker nancy pelosi. he has tweeted or retweeted sevlt dozen times since thursday taking swipes at speaker pelosi and her district and blasting house democrats over impeachment. but last night trump also retweeted a post by his re-electioncampaign's, quote,

war room linking an article that named the alleged whistle-blower whose complaint ultimately led to impeachment. it has been nine days now since the house of representatives voted to pass articles of impeachment. speaker pelosi continues to hold onto those articles until senate majority leader mcconnell negotiates the terms of a senate trial. but pressure is already mounting on republican senators who are undecided on impeachment and procedural questions. in particular maine senator susan collins who's being targeted by republican groups critical of president trump. including the lincoln project, that's a super pac funded by republican critics of the president. president trump did his part to try to curry favor with collins with an endorsement of her 2020 re-election earlier this week. in a statement senator collins told a portland newspaper, quote, i take seriously the oath i will swear to renlder impartial justice in the impeachment trial.

threats from both the left and right will have zero influence on my decisions. for more i'm joined by shannon pettypiece. and jennifer horn, co-founder of the lincoln project and former chair of the new hampshire republican party. thanks to all of you for being with us. shannon, let me start with you. we mentioned the president's twitter activity, quite a bit of it in the past couple of days. very aggressive here particularly when it comes to his posture towards nancy pelosi. in terms of the white house's strategy towards impeachment and that stalemate between the house and senate right now, what is the president trying tochie ach here? >> he's certainly trying to make a villain out of pelosi. the president is usually strongest when he has a strong adversary on the other side. so when you look at 2016 having hillary clinton a very unfavorable candidate according to all the polls on the opposite

ticket really helped drive out a lot of voters for him. not so much a vote for him but a vote against clinton. when you look at the democrats right now they don't have that unfavorability rating you saw with clinton. he's trying to paint the democratic party as a whole and find the sort of villains quote-unquote he can pick out whether it's nancy pelosi or aoc or the squad and take them and use them as a sort of caricature or portrait he wants to paint of the democratic party as a whole in 2020. if they're not going to cast a vote for him because they don't like hem or doemt like haze behavior as president, they're going to show up because they want to cast a vote against nancy pelosi or the squad or whatever progressive elements of the democratic party he finds. i don't know if that has become effective yet because it seems it's only making her stronger. >> we mentioned this retweet the president did last night as sort

of part of this barrage, something that included allegedly the whistle-blower's name. i know you do quite a bit of work there involving whistle-blowers. what is your reaction to that retweet from the president? >> bluntly i think that retweet is wholly irresponsible. this is reportedly a cia employee who has blown the whistle on the president of the united states who is currently suffering death threats. and when people hear the word threats their eye is rolled back into their heads, but really this person's life can be in danger. they're under federal protection right now, and once again donald trump does not know for certain the identity of the whistle-blower. the whistle-blower's legal counsel have come out and said this person that the trump tweet mentioned may or may not be the actual whistle-blower, but anyone is the whistle-blower especially when they're fearing for their live said is wholly

irresponsible and reckless. >> you represent the group of, the term is always out there never-trump republicans. i don't know if you think that's a fair label, but trying to exert pressure on republicans to make moves against the president. when it comes to this debate there seems to be two different debates in the senate here, one is over the question of acquittal, conviction or acquittal of the president but the other is more immediate and it's about the rules. tell me your group, the lincoln project who are you looking at in particular among republicans and what are you trying to tell them right now? >> sure. thanks for the opportunity to be here tonight, steve. the lincoln project is about defeating donald trump and trumpism at the ballot box. so we're looking at every single republican in grds and their behavior over the last three years defending this president. folks like senator collins, martha mcsally, cory gardener

and a lot of other ones, frankly, you know, mitch mcconnell, their behavior in this moment is going to be remembered by history certainly, but more immediately it's going to be remembered by us on election day. i'm very happy to hear what senator collins has to say about trying to maintain her neutrality in taking her oath seriously. but we see from senator mcconnell that really the behind the scenes effort in the senate right now is to create a circumstance that will just simply quickly exonerate the president, somehow find him not guilty. there is so much evidence publicly available of the president's guilt and abuse of power it's an argument -- it's a debate we shouldn't even be having right now. we need to have an open senate trial. we need to bring forward all of those witnesses that we know have direct knowledge that the

president, remember, was calling to have witnesses in the house. and we're looking for folks like senator collins to stand up and be a voice for what's right and for the people of this country. >> so if they don't do that, if susan collins, if cory gardener, if martha mcsally, if tom tillis, if these republican senators facing re-election in 2020 don't do what you're talking about, are you prepared for re-election? from an ostensibly republican group is your position a susan collins who does not vote for the kind of trial you have in mind, you'd rather then have a democratic senator than her? >> what i'd rather are senators who honor the constitution. this isn't about having a trial that i would rather have. this is about having a trial that meet the constitutional standards, and frankly, steve, it's about having the kind of trial that these same republicans would be demanding if we were talking about a

democratic president. i am old enough to remember very well what unfolded when president clinton was in the same situation that donald trump is in right now. and frankly i find it grossly hypocritical that the same people who back then said it doesn't matter that the lie was about an affair, what matters is that the lie took place by the president of the united states under oath. you cannot possibly look at what happened then and think that somehow what's happening now is not much, much worse. when we look at the abuse of power by this president trying to bring foreign influence into our presidential elections so, you know, we are just simply asking what we think is constitutionally sound, that these republican senators stand up and defend the constitution of the united states, and frankly that they are a voice for the american people, not just a voice for the president's most ardent supporters. >> all right, we should point out susan collins was in the senate back in the clinton trial

you're describing. she actually did vote to acquit bill clinton. so she was not among those making the case you're saying. another senator who could potentially break with republicans on impeachment, that's alaska's lisa murkowski. she says she's disturbed by mitch mcconnell and his plans to hold the impeachment trial in his words here, in total coordination with the white house. on thursday john kennedy an impeachment critic responded to murkowski's comments. >> the senator is entitled to her opinion, and senator mcconnell is entitled to his. 9 out of 10 senators secretly don't want to hear this case and the tenth is lying. now, there are many of them not going to say that publicly, but that's how they feel. speaker pelosi knows that. >> kennedy also weighed in on the impasse between mcconnell and minority leader chuck schumer over schumer's request for testimony from four witnesses including former national security advisor john bolton and acting chief of staff

mick mulvaney. >> he better be careful what he asks for because if he gets his witnesses, i'm sure the president is going to want his witnesses, and the president's witnesses won't be subject to a claim of executive privilege, but chucks might and i'm not saying will but you could end up with a situation where the president gets his witnesses and chuck doesn't get his. >> i'm curious it seems right now the president and the white house are placing their faith and their confidence strateg clee in mitch mcconnell and mitch mcconnell's ability to hold the line against the kind of pressure that jennifer horn is describing. what is their confidence level mcconnell will be able to do that for them in the end? >> they're certainly placing confidence in mcconnell, but they're well aware these moderate senators, republican moderate senators you're talking about, lisa murkowski, susan

collins, i'll throw mitt romney in there, they wielded an enormous amount of power too and potentially more than mcconnell. because the senate majority leader does not get to set the rules here, the senate does. and so inevitably the procedure, the rules how this is all going to play out will all come up to a vote in the senate where there has to be 51 votes. republicans can lose two of those sort of moderate leaning senators but they can't lose all three of them, mcconnell, murkowski and romney. and romney and murkowski of course aren't up for re-election. the two of them have a bit more breathing room. the white house is also aware of that, also aware that things can only be pushed so far without those more to the center members stepping in trying toing to push things back. utbut it's an interesting dynamic we're seeing this time because trump's approval ratings are so much lower than clinton's were at this time, yet he still wields so much more power and control over his party than clinton does, which so i think

that that's sort of what we're seeing now, is the control the president has over his power is really offsetting his consistently low approval ratings and helping give the white house a level of comfort here that even if one or two break off that because the republican support is still so strong behind the president you're not going to see a mutiny among republican senators. >> talking about here potential witnesses might be called in a senate trial, if you've got a full-fledged trial if it ends up that way, from that stant there were republicans in the house talking about maybe having the whistle-blower called for a senate trial. what do you make of that? >> well, the whistle-blower should not be called because our elected officials created this system through which intelligence community employees could pull the fire alarm. they could alert their elected officials to dangers inside the intelligence community. and inside this system they are

entitled to anonymity. it is implicit throughout the statute that they are entitled to confidentiality whenever they make that disclosure. there is no realistic way the senate could call before them this whistle-blower without this whistle-blower's confidentiality being breached. the only way i could foresee this happening could be through written questions members could write to the whistle-blower the whistle-blower could then answer under penalty of perjury. that is an option they and their client are open to. i am say, however, i'm a bit perplexed as to why the president even wants this whistle-blower to testify. if this whistle-blower can write, can speak as well as he can write, then his testimony will be credible, calm and calamitous for the president. >> jennifer, i just want to ask you one more about the politics of the senate and what you're trying to achieve here. i wonder does what happened in the house on both the vote to launch the inquiry in the house

there were no republicans against that, and the final article on impeachment, both articles, no republican votes against that. excuse me, for the articles of impeachment either. does that tell you where this is likely to end up in the senate at all? >> well, it certainly gives us grave concern where this is likely to end up in the senate, yeah. you know, this whole thing it isn't just about this moment for impeachment. the lincoln project is about a review of the last three years, the abuse of power by this president and on the flip side the willingness of so many elected republicans to either assist the president or just look the other way. this a moment in history that is going to be remembered well, and it's not -- and legacies are not going to be built by protecting a corrupt president. folks like mitt romney and lisa murkowski and susan collins and the whole list, martha mcsally, you know, cory gardener they

have an opportunity in this moment to be remembered for the infinity, the history of our country as the people who stood up, spoke up and did what's right. that's what we're hoping for. >> all right, jennifer horn, irvin, shannon pettypiece, thank you for being with us. and coming up prosecutors probe into the origins of the russia investigation is setting up a potentially toxic confrontation between the justice department and intelligence community. cia director gena hasical right in the eye of it brewing storm. plus who's winning the democratic race for president? normally you'd check out the polls. what if there aren't any? i'm going to take you through that and irregularities in new voting machines. we have an exclusive report on that coming up. stay with us. exclusive report n that coming up ay with us [farmers bell]

(burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies. (clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move.

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.

welcome back to "hardball." president trump's attorney general and cia director appear to be on a collision course as the justice department continues its investigation into the origins of the russia probe. politico today is reporting that the u.s. attorney overseeing that investigation john durham, quote, is focusing much of his attention on the cia placing the agency's director gena haspel at the center of a politically toxic tug-of-war between the justice department and the intelligence community. in her 19 months on the job haspel has kept a relatively low profile and has so far managed to avoid the president's ire. but according to politico intelligence community probe -- "the new york times" reports durham has asked the cia to turn over communications from its

former director john brennen, and he's scrutinizing the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that russia interfered specifically to help the trump campaign. as politico notes attorney general barr has been skeptical about the agency's conclusions about putin's motivationings. investigations by special counsel robert mueller and the senate intelligence committee of course reached the conclusion that russia intervened to benefit the trump campaign. i'm joined now by cynthia, a former federal prosecutor and edward mcmullen a former cia operative. edward, let me start with you because this looks like as we set it up there there are the makings here at least potentially for a collision here between the cia and the department of justice. how do you pegs the odds of that actually happening, and if it does what would happen? >> well, i think the odds are pretty decent, and if it doesn't happen it'll be because director haspel was somehow able to

deftly manage this situation. i think she will probably try to rely on her, what has been a positive relationship with the president. she'll probably try to strengthen that, try to stay close to him during this for a little bit of internal political cover. i would imagine that she'll also try to cooperate with the investigation as far as she can, give them something while protecting things that really matter. and i don't think she'll need to protect anything, any wrongdoing or anything like that. i think it's more a matter of protecting the agency's ability to do its work and to directors like herself and directors in the future, their ability to lead the organization. i mean it's incredible to me that durham is asking for former cia director john brennen's internal communications and call logs. i mean it's just unimaginable that we have a doj empowered by the president in a way that i

don't think has ever been done before and in a way that seems completely inappropriate and political to go after the agency and not only the agency but the former director of the agency for simply doing his job in pursuit of and in amplification of and conspiracy theory the president continues to push which is that russia wasn't actually responsible for 2016. and that's what this is all about if you ask me. >> cynthia, the idea that haspel might end up trying to draw some kind of line here, might end up feeling forced to draw some kind of line, maybe it's over brennen's communications, maybe some other request. but when it comes to doj versus cia and the cia director trying to draw some kind of a line, what kind of latitude does she have to do that? >> well, she's got a lot of latitude until it comes down to a grand jury speen a. that's why this investigation

once it was raised to the level of a criminal investigation and durham had grand jury subpoena power and the other powers that come with the grand jury, it became very dangerous. i mean just recognize the situation. this is an investigation if it's really looking at john brennen, which is, a, politically motivated by the president. he's attacked brennen repeatedly, called him a liar and every name under the book in his twitter feed. we've also established that barr is willing to lie and corrupt the truth and twist the truth for the president. and he's actually gotten durham to do some things that are not good. i mean after the horowitz report came out he did something in my opinion which is unconscienceable which is comment on an investigation. the president of the united states is weighing in and she has to make some decisions about whether or not she's going to protect the organization.

recognizing, too, that she's run into durham before. and what we don't know is what really are his opinions of her, and that will make a big difference. he investigated her when it had to do with the destruction of the tapes in the torture investigations over a decade ago, and that may turn out to be a factor in it. she shaz some flerksict, but when that grchl subpoena hits the table, she has to turn it over. >> you got to this a second ago, but there is that question then john brennen specifically why the interests there. is it to do with as you're saying, do you think it is to do with the question of russia's motivation and interfering in the 2016 election? does it have to do with -- you keep seeing reports about this guy and who exactly he was trying to chase that down. where exactly do you think that comes from? >> look, i think this is all about the president's re-election prospects. he of course would like to win again in 2020. he understands that the

substantiated reports and proven case of russian interference in the 2016 campaign is a vulnerability for him leading into 2020. and so he wants to mitigate that as much as possible. and what he's trying to do here is say simply look there were investigations into me and russia and they turned up some results and they're not favorable to me, but look maybe those investigations weren't quite right and they were biased and politically motivated, and there are investigations into those investigations, and so, look, the american people and my supporters speaking for trump, yowl can't really know the truth here. the truth is hard to determine. i don't think trump has to convince his supporters that there was actual wrongdoing necessarily in these investigations. he just has to have them believing that possibly there may have been and maybe russia didn't intervene on his behalf

and that allows him to keep together a relatively strong plurality, not majority but plurality that could potentially enable him to win again in 2020. >> all right, thank you both for joining us. up next i'm going to head over to the big board. we're going to look at the lack of polling in early states. we talk all the time who's winning iowa, who's winning new hampshire, who's winning south carolina, a little tougher to tell right now than we're used to. you're watching "hardball" to you're watching "hardball" female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need.

laundry truths. do i need to pre-treat? nope! what even is this? it looks like cheese but it smells like barf. with tide pods, you don't need to worry. the pre-treaters are built in. nice! if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tide.

all right, welcome back to "hardball." the count down is on. look at that 38 days to go now. 38 days and counting until the lead off iowa caucuses and once you have iowa they start coming fast and furious. let's take a look at the leader board. the average of all the polls in iowa, buttigieg narrowly leads and sanders and biden and warren. talk about a tight race all within about 6 points of each other. you go out to nevada, bidens got the lead, he's not exactly running away with it, though. and of course south carolina that's where biden has the big lead. you're familiar with these numbers. we've been talking about these numbers. they set expectations. here's the only problem. how many polls are we actually talking about here? iowa, month of december.

there have only been two polls taken in the state of iowa. remember it's a pretty long list -- the dnc has a pretty long list of officially designated polls they use for inclusion in debates. they tend to be the more gold standard polls. there have been zero of those in iowa this month. so two polls, neither of them is a dnc qualifying debate poll. that's all we're going on in iowa. new hampshire, there's been one. there's been one poll in the entire state of new hampshire this month. that poll was not a dnc sanctioned debate qualifying poll. how about nevada? zero. no polls at all of any kind in nevada in december. one in south carolina. and again that poll in south carolina not a dnc sanctioned poll, and so the four key lead off states, the four crucial states. these are the states going to win on the field. they're probably going to create a front-runner, maybe a clear, maybe an overwhelming

front-runner. to figure out what's going on there in terms of polling this is all you've got. you've got four for the entire month finishing off right now. at this point last time around end of december 2015 in these four states we were looking at 14 different polls. right now we're only looking at four. why are there far fewer this time around? money, money is a big reason. polls are getting more expensive especially at the state level because it's harder and harder to reach voters. it's harder and harder to get people to bick up the phone. the last time you got a cellphone call, started buzzing, your land line, it's one of the problems pollsters have right now. far fewer polls. this is slow period the week between christmas and new year. not going to expect to see many right now. i think maybe in that first week or two of it new year there might be a new batch of polls coming out. boy, do we need them to find out what's happening. 14 polls four years ago, really

gave us a good sense what's going on in these states. right now only four so it's limited. you look out there, there's evidence buttigieg has surged, evidence biden is running slightly behind out there, but let's see. let's see when we get a big brand new poll there. probably hopefully in january and right now a little different than we're used to. up next, electability, a key concern for many primary voters, many caucus goers. what exactly does it mean when it comes to the electoral college. next we're going to take a look at some of the polling we do have nationally. what it tells us about potential matchups. you're watching "hardball." matchups you're watching "hardball. (lamp crashes) ♪music it's the final days of the wish list sales event.

sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

how did you find great-grandma's recipe? we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered.

i thought i knocked off pocahontas. i did it a year or two early. she's gasping for air. they call him mayor pete because

no one can pronounce his last time. if he's in iowa, it's great to be in iowa tonight. what is wrong with this guy? >> that was president trump this month going on the attack against some of his potential 2020 rivals. the president will be entering next year's election as the first impeached president running for a second term. and as this year comes to an end there are still 15 democratic contenders vying to take on the president. >> we have a president who is a pathological liar. who is corrupt, who is a racist, a sexist. >> he is a complete failure, a complete failure as commander in chief. it is most reckless and incompetent commander in chief we have evl had. >> he doesn't respect his own presidency, and frankly at a deeper level i don't think he respects himself. i think he has created a sort of

cartoon character. >> donald trump has put us in a much worse position than we were in before he became president. and for more i'm joined by desiree barns and noah rothman. taking stock at the end of the year, who achieved what politically this year, what we can look to in 2020? desiree, i'll start with you. 15 -- i'm glad we put the number there. there are 15 democratic candidates technically still in the race. believe it or not that's a big reduction from where it was. of those 15 which one had the best 2019? >> i don't think i can just pick one. i would say there are two that stand out. i would say mayor buttigieg. he was the mayor of south bend. we didn't know much about him and now he is performing in fund-raising numbers as well as vice president biden in fact better as well as beating out

senator warren as well as sanders. and i would say senator warren because of the demographic she occupies i think a lot of people counted her out and would think she would beal an unlikely candidate and she really has kind of a populous appeal. >> who do you think did the most, achieved the most in 2019? >> i agree with pete buttigieg. he's a natural talent and he really had an opportunity to shine in major mainstream venues and he's going to be somebody with us in our politics for quite some time and i also think joe biden had a better year than was forecasted to have and for that reason alone -- the predictions of his demise have not -- even though he continues to maintain his position at the top of the polls and he's had a better year than he's gotten credit for. >> how do you look at biden?

nobody's toppled him yet. you still talk to some democrats who talk like he is on the verge of a fall. how do you look at it? >> you know, when it comes to the vice president, our former vice president he really is his own person. he can take these punches better than anyone, he can pull out a hail mary pass if needed, but the great part about the democratic primary process is we have a field that is flooded with overqualified candidates. and i don't know, i don't really count anyone out. we still have mayor williamson in the race, andrew yang. for me to play ouija board and fortune teller on this, i wouldn't. >> let's talk about the shape politically donald trump is in entering 2020. we put the numbers up earlier this week, his approval rating it's about 44.5% on average, in

the real clear average. that's actually up 2 points. it's still 44.5%, so a couple of points below obama at this point, the disproval still over 50, his approval rating overall certainly not matching attitudes towards the economy. do you look at that 44.5% as wow trump is positioned to pull off what he did in 2016 again or he's positioned to take a big hit in 2020? >> i mean, both of those answers are right. if you smooth out the data he's got a remarkably consistent approval disapproval rating. >> it's not as though people are judging based on his performance in office. he's representative of a lot of other things, tangibles, untangibles, what have you, but it's not the day to day news cycle moving the needle. and this year when people stopped receiving services they relied on, when people saw people out of work, and donald trump's strategy to compel the

democratic congress to give him wall funding which was never going to happen, it obviously reflected poorly on him, and that changed his political standing but only very briefly. otherwise i don't think that political events are going to change how people view this president or how you feel about him. >> i'm curious just how you look at it. as a democrat looking at trump do you see those numbers and say we're going to take him out in 2020, this is very beatable guy? are you haunted by 2016 and you say is this the same setup? >> i don't want to be the grim reaper here but i would say i don't look at any polling numbers when it looks at any candidate and making a conclusion on that race. i do think it is a fair fight. i don't think that as much as people think that he can be nailed to the wall with this process, i think you'd be surprised, you know. i think who's having a horrible year is senator mcconnell. honestly the republican party, senator lindsey graham, i would

be more worried about those seats than i would be worried about whether president trump will occupy office because i think those are going to be heavily contested spaces because they're the ones who know better. >> if mcconnell and graham are in deep trouble that's got to be a good sign for democrats nationally. we've already seen the first major engagement between the president and one of his potential rivals joe biden and that is over ukraine. the former vice president has shown his a ability to stand to to toe with trump, but trump's defenders say biden has been badly damaged arguing he's been redefined as a compromised politician rather than a popular president. so has his lead over trump in head to head matchups.

biden continues to lead trump. >> naturally. we're going to get down to the battle ground states as it becomes a much tighter ball game, and it's not entirely clear joe biden can deliver the obama coalition as basically his electability argument contends. he's handled the biden issue tentatively. hunter biden comes out and says i'm sorry for what i did. however, there's nothing to substantiate the claim, and it is basically insinuation from the trump campaign that anything beyond sordid nepotism occurred here. if that comes out it's a whole new ball game. what the trump administration is saying is these candidates are tainted, and that's basically giving away the game. the fact it hasn't registered

suggests that joe biden is not going to be susceptible to the crooked narrative he wanted to impose on him like he managed to successfully leverage against hillary clinton. >> and we know certainly democratic voters have been watching how that plays closely, because it is one thing we see in the national polls that question of electability. democratic voters say they are asking themselves which one of these can beat president trump. my colleague trumaine lee talks to voters and party officials in the key swing state of pennsylvania. they're worried that some of the state's new electronic voting machines may not be quite ready for prime time, and there might be good reason for that worry. you're watching "hardball." ght be good reason for that worry. you're watching "hardball. tion . so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office

to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need. i am all about livi♪g joyfully. hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

welcome back to "hardball." election security and interference in our elections has been big stories this year. and with a presidential election coming up in 2020, problems at the voting booth could heighten peoples concerns about the integrity of their vote. this will be even more crucial in swing states like pennsylvania, a state that went for barack obama twice and then for donald trump in 2016. this november the state rolled out new rules about voting machines in several polling stations in eastern pennsylvania and north hampton county had problems with machines they were using for the first time. msnbc correspondent tremain lee went to north hampton to find out what happened. >> new voting machines in parts of pennsylvania were supposed to make elections more secure.

except a lot went wrong this november in north hampton county in eastern pennsylvania. in some cases voters cast their ballots on touch screens that registered the wrong candidates. in others it was for the wrong party or no vote at all. >> there were so many voters disenfranchised here in one county in pennsylvania and i feel that's extremely unbelievable. >> reporter: county officials scrambled to hold a recount with the back up paper ballots made by the machines. by the next morning they announced the official winners but the damage was done. in the immediate aftermath two unlikely allies came together. north hampton's democratic party chair and the republican chair. this isn't a partisan issue, though, right? this is just a matter of fairness in elections, right? >> not at all. i never talked to lee before a couple of weeks ago, but after the election we were unified in that we have to have complete trust in the voting system.

>> what was the fall out like? the machines aren't working, there was concern across the county, what happened? >> after the polls closed i got a picture with a print out from one of the machines and had the top for a candidate and i was like there's something wrong there. >> i went down to the courthouse with a couple of other witnesses with me that night and they had never use these machines either so it was chaos. so they're bringing in bags and bags of ballots and it was all over the place. they'd never done this before and weren't ready and i don't think they had a plan in place for this to happen. >> to quit voting and request a new ballot touch quit, your ballot will not be cast. so that's important, right? >> ramont oversees elections. he led the push to buy 320 machines at the price tag of

$2.8 million, and he's leading the defense of the machines going forward. at a public hearing middecember the manufacturer said its employees programmed the machines incorrectly alt the warehouse. they attribute it to human error they can ultimately fix and they said ultimately the machines did what they were supposed to do. >> on election day we had a fair, legal and accurate election and the reason we did is because the paper ballot backup worked. >> why are you standing behind these machines when so many other folks don't have the confidence you have? >> because of the problems we had on election day i know in november 2020 i'm confident that we'll know who won north hampton county and there will be no question. questions remain, though. inaccurate results could have an big impact on swing states like pennsylvania and the 2020 presidential election. north hampton as well as philadelphia, the state's most populous county are using these new machines. that's about 20% of pennsylvania's voters. >> i'll probably use an absentee ballot the next time or

especially for the next one coming in april, the primary. >> i have doubts. i have grave doubts about the way north hampton county and pennsylvania is managing counting their votes. >> i think they should take them back and go to a full paper ballot where you fill in the dots with your hand, by hand. >> election security advocates are also concerned saying the machines have security flaws and don't follow election codes. they have joined registered voters in a lawsuit against the state. pennsylvania only rolled out the machines this year as part of a settlement with former presidential candidate ji jill stein who sued after the presidential campaign. is the this system working or is this a deep, deep failure? >> i don't really have confidence in a paper backup from the electronic computer voting because there was difficulty reading it.

there were some people who said we have sworn affidavits that there's was blank and it cast it, so i'm not confident in the paper backup. >> this cleary is not the way things are supposed to work and it's undermined trust in the system and that's a serious problem. it's called voter verified or voter verifiable paper ballot. it doesn't work if people don't read or have difficulty doing so, which a lot of people did have trouble doing that. up next, can the presidency be bought? a couple of billionaires are trying. you're watching "hardball." f bie trying you're watching "hardball. 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. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy.

there's therabreath at walmart.

when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today.

they say money can't buy you love, but can it buy you the presidency? two candidates are trying to find outright now and the numbers are staggering. already politico reports michael bloomberg has spent more than $120 million and tom steyer another $80 million. together that's more than $200 million spent by just two candidates. and what's it gotten them? it's gotten tom steyer onto the debate stage, he was there last week which is more than some other candidates can say. but being on that debate stage hasn't exactly made steyer a contender for the nomination. he's running at barely 1% nationally. hi, stier is the stingy one when it comes to the free spending

and the $80 million he's spent covers months of campaigning. bloomberg by contrast has blown through his in just two weeks and so far it's gotten to him 5% nationally. it's off the lead but also better than a bunch of candidates who have been running longer than bloomberg so bloomberg has bought himself a quick 5% in the polls. the question becomes will it be just as easy to buy another 5% and on and on or is there a ceiling for a candidate like bloomberg who has all the money in the world but who also isn't running in iowa, new hampshire and all the early states. bloomberg is trying to bypass those states and history says that's a losing strategy, when his name is missing from all those leader boards in february everyone is going to forget about him. then again no one has ever tried this kind of strategy with this kind of money before.

the bloomberg campaign pay be the most expensive science experiment. that's "hardball" for now. thank you for being with us. and "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> with eddy gallagher, you know that story very well, they wanted to take his pin away and i said no you're not going to take it away. disturbing testimony from navy seals about their platoon chief shoofs pardoned by the president and hosted at mar-a-lago. >> he was one of the ultimate fighters, tough guy. >> then the dural g-7 sham revealed. documents that show what the secret service actually thought about trump's hotel site regardless of the spin. >> dural was by far and away the best physical facility for this