that is our show for today! "a.m. joy" will be back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and up next, alex witt has the latest. and from my family to alex witt, everybody, one, two, three -- happy new year! >> oh, i love that! you're with your family. you know, they know that they're my adopted family, too. i explained to each and every one of them the relationship, and it's all good. >> 100%. alex is my sister from another mother. >> there you go. >> this is your auntie dolly. this is your auntie and all of our cousins, alex, so -- >> oh, that's wonderful. well, enjoy, all of you. lots of love and laughter. >> thanks, guys. good to see you. >> and good day to all of you from msnbc world headquarters in new york, as opposed to d.c. where joy was. noon in the east, 9:00 a.m. out

west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." new doubts about whether all republicans will be loyal to president trump during the impending impeachment trial. there is a new call to action for senators. within the last hour, new word from joe biden about whether he will comply with a senate subpoena and be a witness in the impeachment trial. a warning from michael moore about the odds of trump winning if democrats pick the wrong kind of candidate. plus, the worst thing about canada editing trump out of a "home alone" movie. but we start with former vp joe biden walking back comments that he made yesterday out on the campaign trail, when asked how he would respond if subpoenaed by the senate. here it is. >> do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the senate? >> correct. and the reason i wouldn't is because it's all designed to deal with trump doing what he's done his whole life, trying to take the focus off of him.

>> biden now ateaming to clarify his comments, tweeting "this impeachment is about trump's conduct, not mine." meanwhile, a stirring of conscience as "the new york times" puts it, happening in the senate. this week, the first potential cracks starting to show in the republican party on mitch mcconnell's plans for an impeachment trial. >> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense. >> my thoughts are anywhere from five to ten of my colleagues who have very severe misgivings about the direction that mitch mcconnell is going. >> i think that mitch mcconnell eventually will be forced by these cracks in his implacable laws reflecked in lisa murkowski's comments and by other colleagues who are saying it privately. question is, will they say it publicly? will they act on it. >> well, all this as the president is finishing up the holiday week on vacation in

florida. but on his twitter feed, impeachment appears to be weighing heavily on his mind with a slew of attacks against house speaker nancy pelosi, who is still holding on to those two articles. let's go to nbc's hans nichols, following the president for us in florida this holiday. good morning to you. what's the latest with the president? i'm guessing his vacation tweetfest is an indication. >> reporter: potentially, right? i mean, he's settling into vacation mode and he's also trying to settle some scores. not only attacking house speaker nancy pelosi for what he perceives to be an unfair process in the house, but also going after her on a different front, talking about homelessness in california. you've seen the president do this in the past, where he attacks pelosi as well as the governor of california for their homeless challenges there. now, the president did head out to his golf course earlier today. that's usually an indication that we're not going to get a direct twitter stream, at least for a little bit, but as you mentioned, he has been very active.

and i think the juxtaposition here, the stark contrast is the president taking a lot of shots on twitter, hitting out at nancy pelosi, but it's been mostly silence from speaker pelosi. she's not weighed in, and the president is in impeachment limbo, wondering what his fate is, and that may be driving some of his shots on twitter as he tries to unlodge or dislodge and take this to the next level. the president has been not, shall we say, entirely consistent on what it means to not send the articles to the senate. when we spoke tuesday night last week, he said it's a good thing, and he celebrated it. but we'll see if there's any movement. as of right now, we don't know, aside from those comments from richard blumenthal, whether or not there are enough republican senators to put pressure on senator mitch mcconnell to fundamentally alter the contours of what a senate trial would look like. >> but certainly a few of them right now are under the magnifying glass as a result of those comments. hans, see you again. thank you so much. joining me, abigail tracy from vf vf and josh gerstein, senior

writer at politico and msnbc contributor. big welcome to you both. josh, you first. the president's tweetstorm against nancy pelosi. what is the intended effect here and how does it actually play out? does it suggest he's worried? >> oh, it certainly suggests he's worried, and even in those recent speeches that he's given, you know, seems to be joking around about impeachment, but you can tell that it's really gnawing at him. he keeps talking about history, so there's no question that he's aware of the severity of the stain of the vote of impeachment even as he tries to play it down. i think in terms of the impact on pelosi, i don't know. i mean, you had this negotiation, which i actually think at this point, as you were alieuing to earlier, alex, is more one between mitch mcconnell and his republican colleagues staying with pelosi. unless you believe pelosi's threat to potentially never deliver the articles of

impeachment to the senate is a real one, then i think it is really a question within the republican caucus. and i just don't know that the president, especially when the threats become sort of vulgar or childish, calling her crazy and lashing out in different directions. i saw another attack on john mccain today. i'm not sure the president's helping his cause with those moderate republicans that really hold the key, at least to the process of how the senate's going to go forward here. >> i mean, the john mccain one, please. it's just -- well, okay. abigail, let's get to the president. it's in effect a twitter tirade. and speaker pelosi herself offering zero reaction, as josh is pointing out, but there was in an interview when her daughter said that, hey, we didn't even talk about impeachment during christmas around the pelosi dwrfamily tab. what does this tell you? >> you know, nancy pelosi is a pro. she's obviously very calm, cool, collected all the time. and i really think, you know, she does very much actually understand trump and sort of how to manage him and kind of get under his skin. and i think really, sort of brushing it aside even, and the

pelosi family saying this wasn't even something we dr. discussing kind of ads to probably donald trump's consternation a little bit. i think there was always going to be a twitter tirade like we saw, given that he is an impeached president over the holiday break and he's kind of sitting there stewing with a little bit more time than he may usually have. so, i think she understands that and she understands that dynamic. and i also think she understands that the greatest threat to donald trump is and has been donald trump. >> mm-hmm. and there's also this threat, because i want to start with you, josh, on this, how we saw this week this first potential crack forming in the republican party. it was set off by senator lisa murkowski of alaska. is she an outlier, josh, or do you think others will follow her? >> i think behind the scenes, others will follow her. i don't know if it's the five to ten that senator blumenthal has suggested, but even any four republican senators could really make a mess out of this for mitch mcconnell. so, i really think behind the scenes, he has to be trying to keep his troops in line.

remember, the republicans in the house were very proud of the fact that they had no defections whatsoever in the vote there on these articles of impeachment, and i think mitch mcconnell is not looking for a 50 or 50-plus-1 vote on how to proceed here with this process. i think what he's looking for is a republican consensus, and that actually does give people like murkowski, like susan collins, cory gardner, mitt romney, it does give them a fair amount of power to dictate sort of how serious and how thorough this impeachment trial's going to be. >> so, do you think, given that nancy pelosi, josh, you know, she doesn't do anything without pretty much knowing what the political outcome would be. i mean, she's extremely calculating. do you think part of the reason she held back these articles of impeachment was to allow this mentality to foment, to percolate within the minds of republicans, you know, the crisis of conscience, it's been called as well, for them to kind of go over everything and think, you know, maybe we've got to act

this way? >> yeah, i think she thought that letting this hang out there for a couple weeks going into the new year would be helpful to the democrats' side and would expose the fact that maybe there is not a complete consensus within the republican senate ranks about how to proceed. i mean, we already knew that there was a divide between the senate and the white house about how to proceed, and she may be thinking that that also festers a little bit by trying to keep mitch mcconnell on the hook. i think for other reasons, this won't go on forever. >> can i ask you also another like chess move here? would it be that, if you don't send the articles of impeachment to the senate, then ultimately, the president could never be officially acquitted, right? i mean, is there that maybe playing into this as well? >> there's a potential of that. then there would also be the question of whether he actually would have been impeached. but i think sure, there's concern among democrats about the talking point that the president's going to try to use here, assuming the republicans

do not move in some large number in the senate to convict him, that as we've discussed, that he's been exonerated or vindicated or something along those lines. i don't think it will be particularly valid, especially if there's a curtailed trial. but there's no question that, you know, nancy pelosi can see that coming down the road. but that said, i don't think holding it back forever's going especially with the moderate members of her caucus who are trying to treat this process very seriously and solemnly. >> okay. let's turn now to the joe biden attempt to clarify some remarks that he made yesterday when he stated that he will not testify in an impeachment trial, if subpoenaed. here's part of what he wrote in some tweets. let's follow this. "in my 40 years in public life, i have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as vp, but i am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial." what's your reaction to that, abigail? and how does biden avoid getting too bogged down in this

impeachment conversation as he's out on the campaign trail in. >> yeah, and it's a really great question. i think he's done a pretty good job up until this point of sort of avoiding it and kind of, you know, sort of dodging it when they've had questions about this. but i think, you know, in this answer, it really was a little bit of a misstep. and i think there was likely a better way to handle it, because really, at this time, you know, when you're running for the democratic nomination and you're running against donald trump, you want to position yourself in opposition to him and sort of the way in which he has behaved in office. and i think really sort of, as we are talking about impeachment broadly, you know, one of the two articles is obviously obstruction of congress. so, i think one of the keys for somebody like joe biden is to signal that he wouldn't do exactly what donald trump is doing, which is sort of this blanket obstruction when it comes to subpoenas and not, you know, not complying with them or telling his top aides not to comply with the subpoenas, rather. but so, i think, you know, it was a bit of a misstep and he's clearing it up. and i think for him right now, you can make the argument that he doesn't think that he shouldn't be part of this conversation, that it's not his

conduct that really matters right now, but also, you know, that is also what donald trump is saying. so, i think he is in a tricky position, but i think for somebody who's running against a president that this democratic field continues to call lawless and sort of, you know, points to this blanket obstruction, as i mentioned earlier, you really have to try to position yourself in opposition to that. >> yeah. all right, before i let you guys go, i want to play what michael moore said about the president in 2020. take a listen. >> if the election were held today -- hillary won by 3 million popular votes. i believe whoever the democrat is next year is going to win by 4 million to 5 million popular votes. if the vote were today, i believe he would win the electoral states that he would need because living out there, i will tell you, his level of support has not gone down one inch. in fact, i'd say it's even more rabid than it was before, because they're afraid now. they're afraid he could lose.

>> which means, as you put this all together, josh, that even if you get 4 million to 5 million votes in the popular vote, you're still not necessarily winning the electoral vote. that's what he's saying there, right? >> i mean, i think he's right on the overall numbers. there's no question, if you just sort of run up the tally, it's like a kid's soccer game sort of out of control, a mercy rule or something like that. but running up the tally in california and new york is not going to produce any advantages in the electoral college. i think whether he's right about what's actually going on in the midwestern states is an open question. i think there is some polling suggesting, especially among women voters, that trump is not doing as well in those states as he was before, but look, i think the big challenge for democrats this fall is going to have actually very little to do with impeachment directly but to do with the economy and convincing voters that even if they think the economy is doing better, they should vote against trump or vote for his opponent. you have trump out there in his

speeches and rallies saying, you may not like me, but you have to vote for me. and i think that's ultimately the argument that democrats are going to have to combat next fall. >> well, again, we say it all the time, people do tend to vote their wallets, so that is a big hurdle for democrats. abigail tracy, josh gerstein, good to see you guys this year. i'll look forward to seeing you next. thank you. >> thanks. take care. breaking news. storms across the country could cause travel delays for millions trying to get home after the holidays. you have blizzards from denver to the north plains and thunderstorms in the mississippi valley, all expected to pummel the midwest. but first, check this out. it is harrowing video from lubbock, texas. we're about to see it. and it happened yesterday. what? on that foggy highway. if you can believe this, only two people were injured in that terrifying crash. msnbc meteorologist janessa webb is in studio and correspondent kathy park is at laguardia airport at nyc. we'll go to you first, janessa. so, what are we looking forward to, or not, this weekend?

>> alex, thunderstorm a massive system that actually started on christmas day in the southwest, and it continues to gain steam for the upper midwest. it's a double-sided system. on the upper side, upper midwest, from minneapolis to chicago, we're dealing with that kind of rain and snow mixture. on the southern side of the system, severe weather, the possibilities of tornadoes, also damaging winds throughout your afternoon. right now we have 14 million that are impacted for the upper midwest, under winter storm warnings, ice warnings, winter weather advisories. and in the forecast the next 24 to 36 hours, i do think this expands into the oregon valley, also the great lakes as well. so, this is just beginning. and you can see from satellite composite radar, alex, i'm really concerned about the ice accumulation, you know when you get that thin layer. the driving conditions are very hazardous across any part of the country, and right now, on top of that ice, we are forecasting the potential of 12 to 15 inches. this would be the largest system

that we've seen all winter long so far, so we're hoping the accumulation really starts to spread more east into the great lakes, and that will lessen the accumulation that we're going to see, even for the ohio valley. so look at some of the delays we're forecasting that will start to pick up this afternoon into tomorrow, before it starts to spread into the northeast. this is an expansive system that right now is only impacting the midsection of the country, but by, alex, by tomorrow afternoon, we are talking about the ohio valley into the northeast as well. >> yikes. you're forecasting quite a mess there, my friend. thank you for that. let's check things out with kathy park, who's in new york at laguardia. so, yes, you're inside. the weather isn't that bad here. but when you look at the skies overall, how are things there? >> reporter: hey, alex. good afternoon to you. well, if you're flying into or out of laguardia, happy to report that things are running relatively smoothly. just checked the board, and most of the flights are on time, so no major delays to report. and you know what, the security

line, it's short and it's actually moving. we had a chance to talk to some holiday travelers who are coming in and out of the airport, and most of them are saying that their experience this holiday season has been relatively enjoyable. take a listen. >> we flew in probably that sunday before christmas, and it was really nice. it wasn't too bad or anything. >> and it isn't busy right now. >> yeah, it's nice. >> we thought it was going to be crazy. >> we're here like two hours early, but you know. >> any travel tips you could pass along? >> i would just say be prepared to wait, you know? like, i mean, it's -- rather be prepared than not, right? you know? >> but you know what, it hasn't been smooth for everyone. out west in southern california, they are recovering after getting slammed with several inches of snow and rain. in fact, two major interstates there were shut down, briefly stranding drivers. and then as you mentioned, alex, in lubbock, texas, foggy

conditions may be to blame for that multicar pileup that sent two people to the hospital. and right now, you know, janessa mentioned that the storm is somewhere in the midwest and is already causing delays in airports in denver, dallas, and minneapolis. but here at lagaraguardia, thin are looking good. alex, back to you. >> yeah. i was going to say, your whole report could have been a lot worse. anyway, kathy park, thank you for the positivity on this travel saturday. appreciate that. it is the biggest obstacle 2020 democrats may face trying to beat this president, and there's nothing they can do about it. that's next. and a bit later, missing the cut. the democrats in danger of not making the next debate. making the next badete i'm your 70lb st. bernard puppy,

and my lack of impulse control, is about to become your problem.

ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. now save even more with new lower rates.

breaking news this hour. nearly 80 people have died after a truck bomb exploded today at a security checkpoint in somalia. at least 125 others were hurt in this attack. many of them students returning to class. it was the worst attack in mogadishu in more than two years. so far, no group has claimed responsibility for the blast, but the al qaeda-linked group al shabaab has been known to carry out similar attacks. as democrats try to make their pitch for the white house and impeachment, the president clings to one issue, where the headlines have been a bit kinder to his administration, that being the economy. new numbers suggest rank and file workers getting bigger percentage raises than their bosses, which may be why businesses from amazon to tiffany's are reporting a strong

christmas season on top of a solid week on wall street. let's bring in congressman john garamendi from california. welcome, sir. i hope you had a lovely holiday. always good to see you. but in terms of good news, tell me what these numbers tell you and how democrats view the economy right now. >> well, certainly, the economy is strong. it's been that way for the last eight years now, almost nine years, if you go back to 2010 after the great recession. the economy's grown about 2% per year, and it continues to grow about 2% per year. obviously, the employment situation is in good shape. people are able to find jobs. but there's still an enormous divide within the economy. the rich are really getting richer. most of those stock market gains go to the wealthy, not to the working men and women on the street. so, this is an ongoing problem. also keep in mind that the federal government is pumping $1 trillion a year of stimulus into

the economy. that's called deficit spending, and that has an enormous impact on a sugar high for the economy. will it continue forever? no, it cannot. eventually, you're going to have to deal with the fact that that deficit is interest and it has to be dealt with. but right now, yeah, definitely we have a good economy, uneven, to be sure. >> yeah, but here's a question, because you hear about the stock market all the time. wall street seems to be profiting, certainly. is it trickling down to your constituents? i know you have some who are working class. are they feeling the benefits? >> well, most people are able to find a job, but in california, it is the minimum wage increase that has really helped the people at the bottom that are struggling and entering the new jobs that are out there. that minimum wage increase ought to be enacted across the nation. it's one of the things that the democrats in congress have been trying to do, and that is to raise the minimum wage for

everybody. that's really how you help the people in the lower income sectors, and that same push from the bottom will help those in the upper -- in the lower-middle-income categories as well. and so, it's really the minimum wage laws that have made the difference. >> yeah, but are democrats doing a good job of putting it out there, that hey, guys, we are the ones that are fighting for this minimum wage increase to make it a federal mandate? are they making that message across the country effectively? >> well, no. the answer is not as we should be, although we're certainly trying. if you take a look at what we've done in congress, our mantra is for the people. and it's not just the minimum wage. it also has to do with election security, it has to do with the drug pricing issues. these are all bills that have passed the congress. we are working on all of these, more than 250 bills dealing with for the people, helping people,

education, all the way across the board. those bills are stuck over in the senate in mitch mcconnell's graveyard. he calls himself the grim reaper, and indeed, most of them have died there. >> yeah, they're just stacking up on his desk. let's go to impeachment now, sir, as we have democratic senator richard blumenthal suggesting that some five to ten republicans may be willing to challenge the senate majority leader, the man you call the grim reaper there, mitch mcconnell, on the aspects of the trial. we've heard similar talk from your colleagues in the house before the impeachment vote, and yet, not a single republican crossed party lines. so, do you think this hope is unrealistic? >> well, i think it really comes down to step two. the first step is eventually the articles of impeachment will get there when we know that there will be an open trial in which testimony will be received from the key witnesses that were anticipating in the obstruction -- in the ukrainian

situation, and also the documents -- when it's clear that there will be a fair, open trial, then the articles of impeachment will be there. now, the question for the senate -- >> may i ask you, though, you mentioned the documents. because we're also learning that house lawyers say they're willing to impeach trump a second time if they uncover new evidence that the president tried to obstruct investigations. are you open to that, to the prospect of a second impeachment? >> well, i don't know that it would get to a second impeachment, but the investigations continue. there is a need to follow up on the mueller report, key witnesses, mccabe for one has been subpoenaed, but that is working its way, now in the supreme court. so, we'll see what comes out of it. there are many other things that have taken place within this administration that need the oversight of the house of representatives and the senate.

will that be an issue that would lead to an impeachment? probably not. the case before the american public and soon before the senate deals with a very important, outrageous situation in which the president of the united states used his power to extort from the ukrainian government a bogus investigation of his political appointment. that's asking a foreign government to break an american law that basically the campaign finance law that prohibits a foreign entity, government or individual, from participating in the american election. >> right. >> that's what the impeachment is all about. it is the abuse of his power by the president to extort or, well, a word that i use all the time, bribe the ukrainian government in exchange for $391 million in military assistance. >> there you have it, sir.

>> -- and a visit to the oval office. >> congressman garamendi of california, thank you so much. we will see you next year. >> you got it. blaming canada. president trump on the editing room floor. why it prompted exactly what we expected from the president. wha expected from the president. ♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat.

donald trump jr. is lambasting the canadian broadcast corporation. president trump's cameo was cut from the 1992 christmas movie i home alone 2." a cdc spokesman said these edits were done back in 2014 when we first acquired the film and before mr. trump was elected president. matt bradley has more on this crazy back-and-forth of accusations. >> president trump has been on a tweetstorm throughout the holidays, but what's different about these particular tweets is the president didn't actually seem all that offended. however, he did join the back-and-forth when his supporters were less than jolly about this christmas mission. ♪ >> reporter: the scene was neither pivotal nor political. >> down the hall and to the left. >> thanks. >> reporter: but after learning that the cbc, canada's public

broadcaster, cut president donald trump's cameo in "home alone 2: lost in new york," some trump fans saw it as a fresh front in the left's alleged war on christmas and on the president. the cbc said it removed the scene back in 2014, years before president trump even declared his candidacy. the seven-second scene was part of an eight-minute time-saving cut to show the film on tv, a common practice. but hosts on morning show "fox & friends" had their own theories. >> i think they're terrified of these little things that will remind people of just how deranged his opponents -- >> it's also censorship. >> reporter: trump had just boasted about the 1992 cameo in a christmas eve video conference call to u.s. troops abroad. >> the big christmas hit, one of the biggest. so, it's an honor to be involved. >> reporter: still, the president seemed to laugh it off, tweeting "the movie would never be the same, just kidding," and pretending to fault canadian prime minister justin trudeau. "i guess justin t. doesn't much like my making him pay up on

nato or trade," he tweeted. but the president's son, don junior, was less amused, calling the cut pathetic. as the president's supporters returned fire with a spoof -- >> direct him! >> reporter: rendering trump as macaulay culkin's character, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer as the comic cat burglars. continuing a political feud that never got its christmas break. >> another christmas in the trenches. >> you know, alex, i'm old enough to remember, having seen the movie when i was a kid and my parents actually remarking, hey, that's donald trump, during that little cameo. but i would never have expected it to play into presidential politics all these years later. alex? >> i don't know what even to say to that, except thank you, my friend. good to see you. but we're going to have more on this as we bring in danielle moody mills, host of woke af daily and co-host of the pot cast "democracy-ish" and rick tyler with foundry strategies, msnbc political analyst. okay, guys, so, the worst thing

about canada editing trump out of the "home alone 2" film in my assessment is that you knew that the president or don junior would not be able to resist complaining about it. we're going to hear the tweets about this, right? and that we were going to have to listen to people calling it censorship. i mean, we should have expected it, but if they just left him in the film, we wouldn't have to endure another tweet tirade. so, rick, am i right? when we look to presidential responses or first family responses relative to don junior, to anything with complete absurdity being a ten and one being important, where does this one rank? >> it's absurd. i mean, it's all designed to get trump attention. in fact, most people wouldn't have recalled that donald trump was ever in this movie, all seven seconds. it was worse when they edited him out of "the passion of the christ," but anyway, that was a different -- [ laughter ] >> oh, man. >> so, look, we're just -- i don't know.

we took the bit a biait so we'r talking about it and everyone gets to see he was actually in the movie, in his much younger days. he actually looked more cheerful then, didn't he? >> you're right. he looked good there. danielle, your scale of assessment? ten is utterly absurd that we're having to deal with this on any level? >> alex, my rating is a 20 in the level of absurdity. i mean, who cares, honestly, about donald trump being in "home alone"? frankly, like, what we should be having a conversation about and what they should care about are, i don't know, the thousands of children that they're still holding in detention centers who have no home, right? who are staying, you know, under lock and key in this trump administration. so i don't care whether or not he gets cut from a film, or you know, who even cares? that's what donald trump is -- that's what he's spending his energy focusing on, this holiday season? >> exactly! exactly! the fact that we're talking about it is because the president of the united states did address this on twitter.

i mean, don junior n notwithstanding. who cares about that? but this is how the president spends his time. he had to sit there and go, and tweet about it. doesn't he have anything better to do. >> evidently he does not. like working on a trade deal, like lowering our deficit, like figuring out our immigration policy, worrying about climate change. i could think of a myriad of things that donald trump could be spending his time doing, but you know what, eating fast food and tweeting seems to be what he does best. >> well, and something he did as well, the president, rick, spent a heck of a lot of time on twitter during the holidays, and that would khalid christmas day, attacking speaker nancy pelosi. he fired off more than a dozen tweets there, still at it today, in fact. so, what is his strategy? is he playing offense or is he playing defense? >> i don't know. it's really remarkable to me. i mean, he's the chief executive of the united states, which is just a huge, huge undertaking. and he has time to tweet 100

times a day. he's been to his golf courses 187 times. and you know, his supporters brag about him giving away his salary. he would have to work 496 years to pay back the money that it cost him, american taxpayers, to fund his rounds of golf. he's on track to beat barack obama's golf outings, which were 88 for his first four years, more than beat them his entire eight years in less than four years. so, between the golf and the twitter and the nonsense and the drama, i just don't understand how he can possibly be managing the country. >> yeah. >> i mean, it's just wasted opportunity. >> in terms of something that's going on, danielle, with regard to the speaker pelosi, how much longer can she delay the delivery of the articles of impeachment? at what point does this become a liability potentially for democrats? >> i honestly don't think that it becomes a liability for

democrats at all. i think that, frankly, you know, it's becoming a liability for mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell getting on television and deciding to do the rounds and saying that instead of holding a fair trial, which the constitution calls for, that instead he's going to be in lockstep with this white house. that's problematic. and i think that the numbers, the polling that we're seeing, the 55% of americans wanting the president to be impeached and to be removed from office, i think that those numbers matter. so, right now i think that nancy pelosi is playing the exact right game that she should be playing. >> should she even potentially extend this by never sending over these two articles of impeachment? i know there are those who say, well then he wouldn't be impaeched. but yet, in the minds of the american public, everyone's pretty clear that he has been impeached in the house. it might take an awful lot to turn that mind-set around. >> i don't think she should hold onto them forever. i do think they should be delivered to the senate because the senate has a responsibility to put on a fair and transparent

trial for donald trump. >> do you think they're going to? >> honestly, i don't think so. i think relying on mitch mcconnell to do anything on behalf of the american people, i might as well hold my breath and wait to grow a horn like a unicorn. but the reality is, is that that is the responsibility that he has. and remember, he's up for re-election, right? and his numbers are not doing so well in kentucky and haven't been. so, i think that this is putting him in a really precarious situation and mitch mcconnell may want to think about the future and not just trying to rewrite the judiciary map for the right. >> can i -- lest question to you, rick. if she were not to send the articles of impeachment to the senate, then the president would not be able to claim what he wants most of all, was that he's been totally exonerated and acquitted. the stain of impeachment would stay with him in a much more profound way. is there any logic to this strategy? >> yes. i think there is no down side for the democrats to hold them. remember, when bill clinton was impeached, the trial didn't get under way until i think it was january 6th anyway, because the time frame was roughly the same.

the senate keeps running out of this talking point of, you know, they're in charge of the senate impeachment. well, the last time i checked, the managers were the prosecutors in the senate impeachment. so i mean, the house has a fundamental, if not the key role in the impeachment trial. what are the senators' jobs? to sit there and be quiet. so, she can -- i think she can push this out as long as she can, and her argument is that i want a fair trial, i want witnesses and documentation. and guess what, 74% of the voters agree with her. i think all the pressure's on mcconnell. what is he going to say, hurry up and get those over here? he himself said he didn't want them over there. and the president has been impeached and with time, they can only add to, who knows, maybe court cases will be sdoided, maybe more evidence will come out, which already has. so, i don't -- why be in a rush? >> okay. rick tyler -- >> it's driving the president crazy. it's driving trump crazy. >> well, that's true, and with that we'll expect more tweets. good to see you both. thank you. political tug-of-war.

the new investigation putting cia director gina haskell in a tough spot. haskell in a tough spot i don't have time for pretreating. 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. so you just toss them in before the clothes. tide pods dissolve even when the water is freezing. nice! if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tide.

you have a brother in the second battalion? they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. if you fail, we will lose sixteen hundred men. if we're not clever about this... no one will get to your brother. i will.

now to a new report in politico looking at the prosecutor conducting the investigation into the origins of the russia probe. he's reportedly set his sights on the cia, which forces the agency's director, gina haspel, to "choose between protecting her agency from trump's wrath and bowing to barr's wishes." that is the report there. joining me is the reporter

behind that story, politico national security correspondent and msnbc contributor natasha bertrand. always good to see you. let's get right into this because this is super interesting. we have haspel, who you say is now, quote, at the center of a politically toxic tug-of-war. what are your sources telling you about whether or not, first of all, she cooperates? >> yeah, so, she is very politically savvy and she understands that it would be pretty futile at this point to try to resist any effort by john durham, who, of course, was the prosecutor appointed by the justice department to investigate the origins of the russia probe in 2016 in his investigation of the cia's analytic conclusions that they drew with regard to russia's intervention in 2016. so, she, for the most part, anyway, has been cooperating with this investigation, allowing durham to question certain analysts, allowing certain documents to be turned over to the justice department. but obviously, there's the possibility that there could be some overreach here because the

attorney general, bill barr, was given sweeping declassification powers by president trump earlier this year, which creates some anxiety, understandably, within the intelligence community about what could possibly be declassified or turned over to the justice department as part of this inquiry. of course, the justice department is fundamentally a criminal arm, so they're applying these criminal standards and criminal procedures to intelligence community product is generating a lot of nervousness. >> are you getting any official response from either the cia or haspel? >> no. we've gotten no response, but obviously, haspel could be in somewhat of another awkward position because part of what durham is investigating here has to do with things that went on in london in 2016, the fbi's actions there with regard to an informant and their general investigation into russia's contact with the trump campaign there. gina haspel, of course, was the station chief in london in 2016. she was briefed on some of these

things. so, what she knew and when has been of great interest to certain trump allies. we know that john durham and bill barr have been kind of catering to those conspiracy theories over the course of the last several months, so she might be questioned as part of this investigation as well. >> okay. something you write, and it's a quote you take -- "normally potential intelligence community misconduct is reviewed by an agency's internal watchdog, who would then recommend criminal charges, if warranted, to a u.s. attorney with jurisdiction." so, what kind of an effect might this have on the intel community if doj prosecutors are allowed to grill say a cia analyst like joseph miss feud? i mean, that is just not normal, right? >> it could create a serious chilling effect. the cia, obviously, the analysts who do their work, they are responsible for taking raw intelligence and making judgments about it and creating a package and sending it to the president, for example, presenting it to npo under any

circumstances be afraid to present that product. and by what durham and barr are doing -- and this is what they fear -- is that they are challenging them and basically putting their findings under the lens of a criminal investigation because this has morphed into a criminal probe. so, that could make cia analysts and officers a little bit more concerned about what they're putting forward. and in the future, they might be more hesitant to investigate these politically sensitive things. >> extraordinary. natasha bertrand, thank you so much for the report. >> thanks, alex. raising the stakes. the two things 2020 candidates will now have to do to make it onto the last debate stage before the iowa caucus. ge before the iowa caucus tough to take care of yourself. but nature's bounty has innovative ways to help you maintain balance and help keep you active and well-rested. because hey, tomorrow's coming up fast. nature's bounty. because you're better off healthy. (sensethe lack of control when iover my businessai,

made me a little intense. but now quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks.

now to the candidates 2020 and 17 days away from the next democratic debate and only five candidates have so far qualified to take that stage. but there are some questions about the new requirements to take part. and joining me now to discuss it, steven shepard, senior campaigns and elections editor at politico. steven, thanks for joining us. so, look, you discussed the january debate requirements in your recent article, and you said candidates need to do two things to reach that podium -- they have to meet a polling threshold as well as a donor

threshold. it's been that way, so what has changed since the debate last week? >> well, those thresholds have increased modestly. it is now 5% in four qualifying polls, up from 4%, or 7% in two qualifying polls from the early states. that's up from 6%. also, the donor threshold has increased from $200,000 to $225,000. that's a small increase and doesn't seem likely to exclude anyone, but those polling thresholds 5% is a number that only a handful of candidates have achieved. >> right. >> you mentioned that only five have qualified thus far, and only a couple more really are in the ball game here as we head into the deadline on january 10th. >> well, you know, as we look at this overall, there are nine candidates that fall below 5%. are we getting to this time where it's time for more to drop out of the race? >> well, i mean, that's a great question. certainly for candidates who haven't or are on the bubble of

qualifying for the debate, they view getting on that stage as necessary. you know, cory booker's campaign, cory booker missed the last debate. he has zero of the four polls that he would need to qualify this time, even though he's met the donor threshold. his campaign acknowledges that they need to be on the stage in order to be viable going into the iowa caucuses. this is going to be a debate in des moines, iowa, on january 14th. so a lot of caucusgoers are going to be watching. and he is planning to kind of blitz iowa in the next few days in hopes that some of the polls that are conducted right after new year's, that are released before the january 10th deadline, show him above 5% or 7%. and he views that, not just getting on the stage is kind of a path to the nomination, but if you're not there, you really have no path at all. >> so you've got the five people who have made it. what's your assessment of those who could make it? anybody else you expect on that stage? >> well, there are two who are kind of, at least part of the way there -- andrew yang has met the donor threshold, but he only

has one of the for poulz he needs. tom steyer, who i know is going to be on your air in a little while, is close to the donor threshold and has two of the four polls that he needs. so those are the two candidates right now that seem to have the best shot outside of the five that have already qualified. >> okay. good to see you, steven shepard. thank you so much for joining me and giving me your assessment of things. >> thanks for having me. >> and as steven mentioned, tom steyer will be on the broadcast. he has spent tens of millions on his campaign already, tens of millions more to promote impeachment. so, is he surprised that he trails nine other candidates in the polls? i'm going to ask him that question coming up. hi i'm joan lunden.

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. even though you keep your car clean, does it sometimes smell stuffy or stale? try febreze car vent clips to eliminate those odors for up to 30 days. stuffy, stale car odors occur because of everyday smells that are absorbed and released from soft surfaces.

then they're circulated by the ac system. febreze car vent clips eliminate the stale, stuffy smells in your car and leave behind a fresh scent for up to 30 days. plus, they come in a range of scents including extra light. try febreze car brand power, helping you buy better. where we can find common ground... big enough to dance on. for a better us, donate to your local y today. about being a scientist at 3m. i wanted them to know that innovation is not just about that one 'a-ha' moment. science is a process. it takes time, dedication. it's a journey. we're constantly asking ourselves, 'how can we do things better and better?' what we make has to work. we strive to protect you. at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions that make people's lives better.

good day, everyone, from msnbc world headquarters in new york. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." we begin with new developments in the impeachment battle from both capitol hill and florida. let's take a listen. >> single person, even that thug giuliani and his compatriots, have said i did anything other than my job. every one of the people with sworn testimony who work for him said biden did his job and he did it well. >> -- to anywhere from five to ten of my colleagues who have very severe misgivings about the direction that mitch mcconnell is going. >> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense. >> the stirring of conscience, as "the new york times" is putting it, happening in the

senate. this week the first potential cracks starting to show in the republican party. majority leader's plans for impeachment trial. >> your father's facing re-election. if he does win, are you going to stay here in washington? >> i am driven first and foremost by my kids. my decisions will always be flexible enough to ensure that their needs are being considered. >> his level of support has not gone down one inch. in fact, i'd say it's even more rabid than it was before, because they're afraid now. they're afraid he could lose. >> do you stand by your earlier statements that you wouldn't comply if you were subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment trial before the senate? >> correct. and the reason i wouldn't is because it's all designed to deal with trump doing what he's done his whole life, trying to take the focus off him. >> biden now attempting to clarify his comments, tweeting, "this impeachment is about trump's conduct, not mine."

and from the impeachment to the battle for 2020, we're going to bring you the very latest this hour with contributors from a number of our reporters and analysts here on "weekends with alex witt." we begin with the day's big headline, the impeachment battle escalating with a potential crack among senate republicans, but so far, the president directing his eyre at speaker pelosi, this in a series of tweets over this holiday. hans nichols is following all the developments from florida. that's where the president, of course, is staying, so hans is there as well. hans, with another welcome to you, what's at the center of the president's frustration? >> reporter: well, nancy pelosi. when you look at the president's twitter feed, it's clear that nancy pelosi is drawing most of his eyre. and he toggles back and forth on whether or not he's criticizing her for what he says was the unfair process in the house during that phase of impeachment or whether or not he's trying to open up a new front and criticize her for homelessness in california or any host of issues. so it seems as though pelosi is drawing most of his eyre, drawing most of his fire. we haven't heard from his

twitter feed in the last couple of hours. he did go to his golf course. sometimes it's an indication that he's actually on the golf course. they don't tell us when there's not a whole lot coming from him on twitter, but what we have is a president who's frustrated with the process, and we still don't know if there is any obvious way how this unwinds itself, because the last we have are two senators who basically aren't talking to each other, chuck schumer and senator mitch mcconnell. the last exchange of public letters that they did or public statements was back on tuesday, almost a week ago now, where they said we're going to talk when we get back into session on january 6th. one big event we have before that, the president will be doing a rally with evangelicals in miami. he's scheduled to do that on the third. and so, then we may be able to take the temperature of the president, at least what he thinks is playing potentially among his base. alex? >> yeah, interesting the evangelical push, considering the fact the president did not go on christmas day to his

typical episcopal church in florida, but went to an evangelical church. just a point, putting a focus there. thank you very much. let's move to editor at large john harwood. with a big welcome to you, as always, what's your take on the president's tweets? i mean, what's it revealing? >> he's very anxious about the impeachment. he takes everything personally. it hurts his ego. it's a stain on his record. and we've seen him get increasingly agitated as this process has gone on. he's lashing out and throwing a bunch of nonsense on the wall against nancy pelosi. but what's really happening is he's been stuck, he's been hurt, and there's going to be some more pain to go with the senate trial. he's not likely to be convicted. that's quite obvious. but this is not a good story for the president. >> can you give me some nuts and bolts on this senate trial, first of all, when it might start? what are the expectations there? >> well, i would think that it will start sometime in

mid-january. i don't read all that much into the lack of communication between mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer. those are both professional politicians who when the time is right will come to some sort of an agreement. nancy pelosi is trying to add a little bit of leverage on behalf of schumer so that democrats can try to obtain the right to call some witnesses whose testimony would be further embarrassing to president trump. and you know, president trump initially said, well, you know, i want an opportunity to present my case, i don't want a quick verdict. but now when it comes to the actual witnesses the democrats want to put on, bolton, mulvaney, pompeo, people who could say things that are quite damaging if they give truthful testimony, that's going to -- that's something he's not interested in and he's siding with mitch mcconnell. but i do think murkowski's break with the president is a

significant sign that at least there's a possibility of some sort of a combination that would be forced by dissident republicans siding with schumer. >> but you know, as the articles of impeachment are withheld from the senate, does it buy time for the democrats to get what they want? nancy pelosi, you know, wanting to shape the parameters of this senate trial and calling witness, or does it get to a point where there's diminishing returns for democrats? >> no, i think it buys her some time to get what she wants. i don't know how much she's going to eventually get. this is leverage that can't be implied up definitely, because if she holds these articles back for an extended period of time, it's going to look like democrats are playing games and thwarting the very constitutional process that they've been speaking up in favor of. so, i think this is a little bit of maneuvering and positioning and application of leverage that has a time limit on it. i think when the congress comes back the first week in january

on the 6th, they will start talking and come to some sort of accommodation. and i think within a couple of weeks, they'll be in a trial. don't know how long that will last, but i think that's where we're headed. >> how significant do you think lisa murkowski's split with mitch mcconnell is on the impeachment strategy? is it something democrats can really seize on? >> you know, it is always hard to predict. we have had during the course of trump's presidency little flickers of independence displayed by some republicans that in many cases we wondered, well, is that the entering wedge for a broader split between the president and republicans? those have not materialized. people who bet on republicans turning on president trump have gone broke by now. so, the question is, how many more? it's not going to be a large number, but certainly, mitt romney has expressed significant misgivings. you add lisa murkowski, you've

got some vulnerable republicans who at least, as they enter their re-election year -- susan collins, cory gardner, martha mcsally, thom tillis, even -- may want to demonstrate that they're taking seriously the broader set of concerns. and it only takes a few to side with the democrats to get rules crafted more to the democrats' liking. >> what about former vice president joe biden who said yesterday he wouldn't testify if subpoenaed. then he tweets attempting to clarify the remarks, writing in part "in my 40 years in public life, i've always complied with a lawful order, but i'm just not going to pretend that there's any legal basis for republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial." what's your reaction to that, john? >> well, i think that's an indication that joe biden knows that he made a mistake by saying he would defy a subpoena. remember, the argument of democrats throughout this process has been we are standing up for the rule of law.

and we have a lawless president who is behaving in ways that we now have to respond to through the impeachment process. if you have the former vice president saying he would ignore a subpoena, that seems to cross that line and say, well, i'm going to in certain circumstances embrace lawlessness myself. so, i suspect -- and i haven't seen a full clarification beyond that tweet -- that what he may end up saying is, well, i'll challenge a subpoena in court as opposed to i'll simply ignore it altogether. >> okay. cnbc's john harwood. thank you very much, in. friend. >> you bet. >> good to see you. as the president airs his grievances on twitter, speaker pelosi is keeping a tight grip on the articles and "business insider" today explains how that's keeping the president powerless. the author of that piece, sonam sheth, is joining us now. with a welcome to you, you write that speaker pelosi is making the president squirm, something

no one else was able to do in three years. can you explain this? >> right. so, i think it's really important to examine where trump is in the context of his entire presidency. for the first two years that trump was in office, his power went virtually unchecked because republicans controlled both houses of congress. and so, trump likely got used to having what he believes was the absolute right to govern as he sees fit. now that nancy pelosi is the tip of the democratic sphere now that democrats control the house of representatives, trump is kind of learning the difficult way that he can't just bend pelosi and the democrats to his will the way that he wants to. you were talking about trump's tweetstorm over the last couple weeks, and i think that's really indicative of the fact that he is realizing that he can't weaponize congress the way he has other agencies of the executive branch like the justice department and other federal agencies. so, his reaction on twitter is kind of a sign that he feels like he is not in control for

the first time in his presidency. he could be trying to rally his base because pelosi is, of course, a betten year for republicans the way almost no other democrat is. but as far as the impactful process on the process itself, pelosi has a spine of steel, so she has not shown any sign of being cowed by trump's attacks on her. >> no, not at all. but you cited someone who is close to the president and was so during the legal team russia probe, and this person said that as long as those articles of impeachment sit in nancy pelosi's hands, trump is powerless. powerless is a very strong word. how significant is that? to what effect is he absolutely powerless? >> well, look, if we look at the constitution, the house of representatives has the sole power to impeach the president. and it seems like nancy pelosi is relying very strongly on that constitutional mandate that the house of representatives has. and so, until she actually

transmits those articles to the senate, there's nothing that the president can do to force her hand. and that in and of itself kind of robs him of what he wants most through this process, which is, of course, total and complete exoneration from the republican-controlled senate. but as we were talking about, there are people like lisa murkowski, senator mitt romney, susan collins, even people like cory gardner and potentially martha mcsally. so, if we have people like these senators who have not been entirely in trump's corner this entire time come out and say that they want to call for witnesses and say that they want a more fair and impartial trial, even that could go against the president's favor in the senate, which is controlled by his party. >> okay. a couple weeks guaranteed to still be talking about this with you, my friend. thank you, sonam sheth. >> thank you. we have breaking news to share this hour. at least five people are dead after a plane crash in lafayette, louisiana. that's a town that's about an hour or so west of baton rouge. and crews say that six people were on that small plane. i believe it was an eight-seater. it crashed into a car.

one person inside the plane, someone inside that car have been taken to the hospital. the ntsb, the faa, they're investigating. there is no word yet on what caused that crash. we're going to bring you the latest as we get this information. meantime, the battle over health care and the people caught up in the middle of it. up next, how a new msnbc series examines the struggle and potential solutions. bc series examines the struggle and potential solutions.

frustrated that everyday activities cause wrinkles and there's nothing you can do about it? now there's a solution! downy wrinkleguard is a fabric conditioner that helps protect you from wrinkles all day.

just pour the dye free liquid into the rinse dispenser. after a day of wear, pants washed with downy wrinkleguard and detergent are virtually wrinkle free. it even comes unscented. if you don't love downy wrinkleguard, we'll give you your money back.

new insight now into medicare for all and socialized health care, as some democrats

vying for the white house say it is possible. journalist francesca fearirenti sought out to see how voters think. "red, white and who" is set to premiere tomorrow. health care in america. it's a bit like a bad ex, you know the one who never treated you right but who you'll still call in an emergency? even with obamacare, about 30 million americans still don't have health insurance, and many of those who do are struggling to pay for it. did we not do this right? this is my journey across america to ask the nation one simple question -- most are we and what do we want? okay, two questions. neither of which is simple. this is "red, white and who." >> i can tell already i'm going to love this one. francesca is joining me now. this is going to be well produced and you as a host will be great because you have a great sense of things. >> thank you. >> after you tour the country and talk to politicians,

individuals, just average citizens, what do politicians first think of the nationalized health care? i mean, are there those who really think this is going to happen, it is viable, we can get this done? >> i mean, people think that. the doctors i spoke with thought that. the people who are going bankrupt trying to save their l insurance already and who are pretty -- are middle-income folks -- they are the ones who are saying we can get this done and have to get this done. the politicians not so much. so, i think a lot of folks don't know that, actually, in 14 different states, obamacare stipulated that medicaid would be expanded and medicaid has not been expanded in 14 republican-led states. and that's preventing millions of people from getting health care right now. so, we think that the aca has been fully implemented. it hasn't been. so, the gop is fighting this on ideological grounds, and i think a lot of voters are saying, especially democratic voters are saying, hey, why not fight from

the other side on ideological grounds? because we believe that this is a moral issue. we believe that health care shouldn't be left up to people who are making a profit off of it. >> yeah. so, when i mentioned politicians, let's talk about bernie sanders, with whom you sat down to talk about health care. let's take a little clip at what he had to say about things. here it is, everyone. >> how much does medicare for all cost? how many iraq wars? [ laughter ] >> that is a great question. >> like 1 1/2? >> i mean, that's a hard apples-to-oranges to make. but here's the more important part. people say medicare for all is expensive, but if we maintain the status quo, okay, you don't bring in the cost of efficiencies that medicare for all will, there are estimates out there that we'll be spending $50 trillion over the next ten years for health care. so, we already are spending far more than any other country per person on health care. >> so, when you were getting the answers to who supports medicare for all, did anyone surprise you, saying, yeah, i do? >> i think what surprised me the

most, people aren't -- especially republicans -- they aren't ready to say, yes, medicare for all. but they are ready to say, we like medicare. please don't make any cuts to it. and we know that medicare and medicaid have been on the chopping block for a lot of leading republicans, right, in the senate, in the house. so, i don't know if they're ready to go there, but they are ready to say something is breaking, i'm feeling it myself. and of course, i think we have to get over this hurdle that it is somehow socialized medicine and we're going to all be waiting in lines and it's going to be terrible, you know. and i think that there's starting to be that vision of something different because what we've got is so incredibly broken and so complicated, a lot of folks completely stay out of it. they're like, listen, i don't know if there's attacks on me or not if a tax or a penalty on me. it's so expensive for me to enter into this and it's complicated to figure out where i can get my health insurance, where i can even go see a doctor. i'm staying out of it

altogether. >> okay. so, the question that you went out and asked, finding out who we are as americans -- what did you find out in terms of a focus on that? there were a lot of different focuses? or is the one that you came up with, yeah, i have the answer to th that? >> we're pretty cool. americans, we're all right. >> that good. >> we're all right. no, i think in terms of the who and when it comes to health care, i think that it's important to remember, and what i saw, actually, was that republican or democrat, we're actually not that different. and especially on these bread and butter issues, especially when it comes to the health of ourselves and our loved ones. >> look, republicans and democrats get sick. come on. >> exactly. >> you want to treat yourself, treat your loved ones and get healthy. >> absolutely. in fact, i think that the real struggle and the real divide isn't between left and right. it is between the people with power and those without it. >> okay. "red, white and who?" what else are we going to see in this? >> you're going to see me attempt to ride a horse and talk to a cowboy, a rodeo cowboy who

has never had health insurance in his life. >> really? >> and as he says -- yes. he says, you know, it's not a matter of when you're going to get injured -- >> right! >> or how you're going to get injured, it's a matter of when. and what's interesting about that is you can take that and apply it to all americans. we're not all cowboys. but it's not a matter of if we're going to get sick. it's a matter of when. and that's just the unfortunate reality about these human bodies that we have not made bionic yet, and i hope elon musk is working on that. but until then, we're all going to need health care at some point, and hopefully, we won't have to use our entire life savings or more, you know, take out a second loan or move into our parents' homes in order to get healthy. >> yeah. this is going to be good. this is going to be appointment tv, or at least dvr it if you're going to be out and about. francesca fiorentini, thank you for joining me. the year of the billionaires? how two of the democratic candidates are trying to stand out in this 2020 race using a

different strategy than their opponents. one of those contenders, tom steyer, joins me live next. hey, tom! steyer, joins me live next hey, tom when you shop with wayfair, you spend less and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com 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.

at chwe're a festive family. we're a four-legged family. we're a get-up-and-go family. we're a ski family. we're all part of the chevy family. and as we kick off the new year, we'd like you to be a part of ours. because our chevy employee discount is still available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. so happy new year, and welcome to the family. the chevy family! the chevy employee discount for everyone ends soon.

more on this breaking news this hour.

least five people are dead after a plane crash in lafayette, louisiana, as we show you some new video that we've just gotten into us here at msnbc. we're talking about a town that's about an hour west of baton rouge, and crews there say that six people on board that small plane, it crashed into a car. one person inside the plane, another person inside that car, both have been taken to the hospital. the ntsb and faa are investigating, but there is no word on the cause of that crash. we'll bring you up daldates as get new information. but this strategy and dramatic video we're just getting. back on to the campaign trail for 2020 and candidates are vying for voters 20 days before the first caucuses in iowa. the recent poll out of the state shows mayor pete buttigieg leading the pack, followed by senators sanders, warren and vice president joe biden. while the 11 other candidates are racing to catch up, four of them are in iowa today, looking to keep up the momentum. joining me now, our nbc news road warriors, shaquille

brewster and amanda golden. shaq, we'll get to you first in marshall town, iowa. pete buttigieg has campaigned in iowa, nearly a couple dozen times since announcing his bid. what can you tell us about today, the events there, and how many iowans are you finding out who are still unsure of whom they're going to vote for? >> reporter: oh, there are a lot of iowans still unsure and even a few who have decided who they want to support but say they're open to considering some other candidate. i'll tell you, alex, we had somewhat of a christmas break here where you had no candidates out on the campaign trail, but that has ended. campaigns are back out in full force, trying to court voters. i spoke to one voter today, ms. rene pyle. she was in line waiting to hear from mayor pete for about two hours. she's a former republican who plans to caucus for mayor pete. i asked her why. this is what she told me. why mayor pete? >> mayor pete is intelligent. he has an understanding of the

constitution. he served our country. and i think that he's the complete opposite of donald trump. and being a republican, i feel very strongly that the complete opposite of donald trump should be president. >> reporter: so you're a registered republican. >> i just changed to democrat so that i could caucus for pete. a lot of my female republican friends are definitely -- they are not on the trump wagon. >> reporter: and you mentioned mayor pete is currently leading in the polls. the average of polls here in iowa. he is a candidate who may have something to look forward to in january, unlike many of the senators, five of the senators who are also candidates. he will have the state of iowa to himself, essentially, with vice president biden, if there is that senate impeachment trial. that's why you had candidates like amy klobuchar, who was here this week. she completed her tour through all 99 of iowa's counties. she had to move up that goal a little bit, knowing that she may be taken off the trail if we do get to that next month. >> wow. and interesting sound bite interview from that newly

democratic voter there. that was a good one. there was a lot of power in that punch. thank you for that, shaq. amanda golden is in manchester, new hampshire. she's been covering the bernie sanders campaign. amanda, with a welcome to you. we have team sanders, which has gotten a little bit of pep in its step over the last few days. i guess that's one way to describe it. fill us in on what's going on there. >> yeah, alex. we have seen consistent enthusiasm for senator sanders here in new hampshire, especially during this swing. all three events of his yesterday were packed, standing room only, and the first event of the day in dover also was packed and standing room only. this comes on the heels of sanders leading the average of polls in this state, showing that he is the front-runner, technically, among that average of polls, but it is a very narrow margin, and he's closely followed by buttigieg, biden and warren, all within the margin offer. this poll was also from before senator harris dropped out of the race, so anything is really up for grabs here in new hampshire. we're seeing more and more how sanders is gaining momentum and support in the state, especially with a new endorsement from one

of the highest dem state elected hearsay in new hampshire, andrew volinsky, a gubernatorial candidate. he spoke about winning the primary in new hampshire back in 2016. take a listen to what he had to say. >> and i want to say a word of thanks, as i often do, to the people of new hampshire, not just for the support that you gave me in 2016, but there's something deeper than that. when i came here and i talked about the issues that we talked about, we had the political establishment and the economic establishment and the media establishment saying those ideas are too radical. those ideas are too extreme. those ideas are not going to be supported by the american people. and guess what, we won here in new hampshire by 20 points. [ cheers and applause ] >> reporter: that echoed a lot of what we hear from sanders as

he campaigns throughout the state but also was his supporters say they like and respect about him, that sanders is who he is, he does and says what he has consistently for over 40 years, and they see it as a real sign of respect and consistency, that sanders isn't going to back down on the issues that they seek to vote him in on, whether it's medicare for all, free college or overall electability into the white house and being able to bring about other issues like climate change, advocating for the green new deal. so we seek to see what sanders will bring as far as his support with 45 days to go in new hampshire. >> okay. i want to thank you for that, amanda golden, and also our nbc road warrior shaquille brewster before that. also new reporting this week on how the two democrat billionaires in the 2020 race are making their mark by saturating the airwaves with campaign ads, with politico reporting that together bloomberg and steyer have poured $200 million into television and digital advertising alone, which is more than double the combined ad spending of every single

nonbillionaire in the democratic field this year. joining us now is one of those candidates, tom steyer, president and founder of next-gen america. good to see you, tom. thanks for joining me. we're going to get right into it here because i don't want to waste any time. i know you've heard the criticism that suggests by some that you're trying to buy this election when others like kamala harris and kerstin gillibrand, tim ryan as well, they had to drop out, lacking funds. do you have more beyond just the dollar signs? >> look, alex, i think the question for every single candidate in this race, including me, is do you have a message that's different from everybody else? are you saying something different? does it resonate with the american people, with democratic primary voters? and do they trust you to carry out what you're talking about? in my case, the reason i got into this race is that i think we have a broken government, that corporations have bought it, and i have spent ten years fighting those corporations and beating them.

and so, i got in this race because i was upset listening to the two early debates, because people were talking about policies that everybody wants, but in fact, we can't get until we take back that government from the corporations who own it. so, yeah, it's all about message, alex. >> and i'll say this, you've been very, very consistent with your messaging, you know, putting your money where your mouth is, for sure. this politico article talks about how your campaign spending is focusing on the four early voting states. the quote is -- he has spent nearly $37 million in iowa, south carolina, nevada and new hampshire, much of it on digital ads. since joining the race in july, he's more than doubled the combined ad spending of buttigieg, biden, sanders and warren in the early states. has the investment paid off the way you'd hoped it would, tom? >> actually, alex, it has. if you look, the one poll that come out recently, which is the "morning consult" poll had me at an average of 10% in those four

early states. and that's really from, i think, almost two weeks ago. so, in fact, what has happened -- i was one of the last people to get into this race in july. i've consistently moved up. i think i'm saying something really different, alex, not just about the fact that corporations have bought the government, but also, i'm the only candidate who will say that climate is his or her number one priority. >> yeah, yeah. >> i've been saying that on the stage, but it's really different, and i think the other thing that's true is i'm somebody who can take on trump on the economy. i can go on a debate stage with trump and unmask him and expose him for the fraud that he is. so, i think i have a different message. and honestly, in those four early primary states where i've been concentrating, in fact, it is working. >> so you think it's getting through. what about the article which also talks about mike bloomberg, who has spent about $120 million or so in the three weeks since he's joined the race? what do you make of that?

>> look, i hold mike to the exact same standards that i hold everybody else, which is message. and i've said before he got into the race and since he's been in the race that if mike bloomberg wants to represent the democratic party, then he has to embrace a wealth tax. i proposed a wealth tax over a year ago, long before i thought about running for president, because i know that the inequality in our system in terms of income and wealth is so egregious, so unjust, so un-american, that we have to redress it, and particularly for somebody like mike bloomberg or me, who's been so fortunate in america, we have to be -- if we want to represent the democratic party, he should be embracing a wealth tax to show that he is going to redress something that has been a 40-year increase in inequality that is absolutely unbearable. >> you've thrown down the gauntlet. we'll see if he picks it up. what about bernie sanders, who had this to say last week at a

rally? take a listen. >> we don't go to rich people's wine caves. this is a campaign of the working class of money country. >> so, what do you say to that kind of rhetoric? how do you counter it? >> alex, for goodness sakes, i'm not taking money from rich people's wine caves. i mean, one of the t you know for sure about me is that absolutely nobody could buy me. >> yeah, true. >> i mean, what you've seen for the last ten years is when there's something wrong in america that i see that's big, then i go after it with my heart and soul and hard work, and i spend money on it, and so, what bernie's saying is true for me. in fact, i am doing this because i thought there's something wrong and no one's leveling with the american people. that's why i'm doing this. and nobody can buy me. >> and it's true. and tom, i'll say, you've been on my show long before you became a candidate talking about the things that you're still talking about on the campaign trail, but how do you respond to

criticisms that you're trying to buy the nomination? what do you say to that. >> look, nobody can do that, alex. the truth of the matter is, the only thing that matters here is are you saying something differential. that's why i say, mr. bloomberg, go ahead. if you have something to say to democratic voters, go ahead and come out with your message and let's see. there is no way that that idea that you could buy an american vote makes no sense. the question here is who is going to say something really important that people are going to relate to and want to support? that's the only question here. i think everything else really misses the point. >> and look, tom, you want to get on that debate stage to say what you think is important. you haven't yet qualified. will you qualify? >> look, if they run polls, i think i will. i mean, because if you listen to what i said, the "morning consult" poll, which is a couple of weeks old, had me at an average of 10% in those four early primary states. >> yeah. >> so, if they run polls in

those states, i have two out of the four. i'll get the other two as soon as they run the polls. >> okay. tom steyer, good to talk to you, my friend. >> okay, alex. nice to talk to you. >> thank you. applying pressure. up next, how democrats are unleashing an effort to get senate republicans to convict trump. which republicans might cave to that pressure? whh icrepublicans might cave to that pressure? y their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum.

- do that are degrading?ideo tapes, film reels, or photos, legacybox professionally converts them to dvds, thumb drive, or the cloud. legacybox is simple and safe, with over half a million satisfied customers. visit legacybox.com today, and get 40% off.

new reporting this week giving insight into democrats' game plan for the next steps in the impeachment process.

the "daily beast" reporting advocacy groups are working to make the impeachment trial as painful as possible for the gop, putting maximum pressure on republican senators to break with the president in the trial that will decide the fate of his presidency with one simple message -- convict trump or else. joining me now, the reporter who broke this story, sam brody, congressional reporter for "the daily beast." sam, welcome to you. give me the details about what you found in your reporting. summarize for the viewers what you wrote about. >> right. so, democratic groups or democratic-aligned groups that have been organizing those in the liberal base around the impeachment process are now turning their sights to the senate where they're seeing an opportunity to put pressure on some of these republican senators to, if not convict trump or vote for articles of impeachment against trump, at least be open to some changes to what the trial process could look like in the senate. to take a step back, liberal groups looked at the success that republican-aligned groups

had in the house side where these groups spent a lot of money and spent a lot of effort and time putting pressure on moderate democrats who are really in the hot seat on impeachment. now, a lot of those folks ended up voting to impeach the president anyway, but what they were able to do was put them in the political hot seat. they got lots of ads in their districts and calls to their offices and things like that. liberal groups want to replicate that process on the senate side, where it's not really going to be democrats who are in the hot seat on the impeachment process, but it's going to be this set of moderate republicans and republican senators who are up for re-election in 2020. >> so, like who? give me the names that you think they're targeting. >> well, so, in my reporting, i report on a group called stand up america, which is sort of like need to impeach, which is presidential candidate tom steyer's group. and they're focusing on about a dozen republican senators. so, these run from folks like susan collins, who is considered a moderate and also is up for re-election in 2020, has a tough race, to folks like mitt romney,

who is not up for re-election but is icra critic of the president, is seen as somebody who could plausibly vote to convict the president or vote on changes to a trial that might allow for expanded witness testimony, for example, from folks who did not get heard from in the house side of the process. >> so, they're looking to get people to come out on the process and then let that process play out, which could potentially take some of the heat off of them because, as evidence might be presented, right? i mean, that's the idea, that they're more likely to get these lawmakers to maybe join on that front, rather than just saying, we're going to vote to impeach the president? >> yeah, exactly. so, you know, democratic leader chuck schumer has been pretty xlexplicit about this strategy. he's saying, look, you don't have to be out there saying that trump needs to be removed from office, but folks like susan collins, folks like mitt romney who are see these folks, he thinks, and he's arguing, should be really considering measures to expand

the process. and i think part of the reasoning behind that strategy, at least from, you know, folks who are really pro impeachment on the democratic side, is this is sort of a bank shot to maybe get a game-changing bit of information out there into the public sphere that could really change the calculus on impeachment. they say, look, if the trial gets opened and there is testimony from people who haven't been heard from so far, that could yield some kind of information that really makes it far more difficult for republicans to defend the president -- >> turn a blind eye, yeah. >> exactly. this is somebody like john bolton coming in to testify, for example. if there was republican support for increasing the witness list and somebody like bolton comes in, that could provide some revelatory new information about the ukraine matter. again, this is sort of a bank shot, but this is democrats' play and they're going to stick to it, backed by these outside groups. >> sam brodey, it's an interesting article. thank you for coming on to discuss it for us. appreciate that. >> thank you very much. so, what might be the most

important issue for democratic voters at the ballot box in november? we're going to discuss it next. november we're going to discuss it next with tough food, your dentures may slip and fall. fixodent ultra-max hold gives you the strongest hold ever to lock your dentures. so now you can eat tough food without worry. fixodent and forget it.

today" with a strong message for democrats.

beating donald trump in the 2020 election isn't everything. it's the only thing. writing, the party's voters s should focus on one overriding issue. which candidate is best to beat trump? joining me, columnist for the "daily beast" and msnbc political analyst and welcome to you both. this editorial continues and goes on to say, in a few short years trump promoted interests of u.s. foes needlessly run up massive government debt, climate change and done palpable change to the medical system and unfit leadership, ridding us of this is far more important than who has the best plan to hand out free money or declare everyone to get free medicare.

do you agree? democrats focusing on the wrong issues? >> absolutely not. we're focusing on the issues quite honestly the majority of americans care about. the democrats picked up seats in senate and a lot at the state and local level because of health care. it makes sense we would go into 2020 talking about what is still a very important issue to most american citizens, which is preserving and expanding affordable health care and making sure that it's accessible to everyone. so i don't necessarily -- i don't agree at all much with the "usa today" editorial board. >> jonathan, what do you make of this editorial and who do you think of the candidates who fit the mold able to beat trump? >> the second question answered first, any can beat trump and democrats or republicans who say some of them absolutely cannot

have not analyzed the polling data we have. but i disagree that the conversation on health care has been healthy for the democratic party. it has not been the conversation that won the 2018 midterms. that was also on health care, but it was about protecting people with pre-existing conditions. expanding medicaid. the conversation that the democrats have been having in too many of these debates has been about whether to get rid of private insurance. that's a loser debate for the democrats to be having. so they need to be talking about strengthening obamacare, expanding coverage, protecting people. lowering drug prices, but not eliminating choice. americans are obsessed with choice. they don't want that taken away from them. now, can there be -- lower retirement age at which people

are eligible for medicare? yes. can you have a robust public option, medicare for all who want it? absolutely. but taking that next step as at least a couple candidates have taken, although elizabeth warren has now backed off some, thankfully, is a real problem for democrats. >> you wanted to jump in? >> i wanted to say respectfully, jonathan, it's one of many options discussed. i don't think there's a conversation about the fact a lot of individuals whether republican, democrat or independent are not very much in love with private insurers. what are the options to be sure everyone is affordably covered. >> options. >> definitely. >> that discussion has not been about options. >> that is what a primary debate is about. having conversations about what voters want. >> yeah, but medicare for all, tagged as a proposal for whatever reason that takes away peoples options. what warren has to do, i don't

think bernie can do this because he's really locked in. she has a transition plan and making it clear in that plan she wants medicare for all but also wants to preserve long transition periods, these other options. that's a message that democratic voters need to hear right now, but i think to a larger question, alex, like first democrats have to show who can take on trump and really prosecute the case. i think they're all blowing it right now, and not framing the senate trial properly. to have a real trial you need witnesses and documents and democrats needs sew tay, do you want a real or a fake trial? that's the question. >> that will be said at some point soon. thank you for saying it, jonathan. we have to wrap this up. causing quite a scare to a u.s. military base in south korea. that story in our next hour. that story in our next hour. knoy say about curiosity.

it'll ruin your house. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow.

♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

top of the hour, i'm so out of time. hand things off now to my colleague kendis gibson. take it away, my friend. >> have a good one. i'm kendis gibson here at msnbc headquarters in new york. dealing with blowback and cleaning up comments he made about impeachment. what joe biden is saying now about possible