nicolle wallace begins right now. ♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. where multiple national security crises all exacerbated by donald trump's erratic and untethered foreign policy impulses await the president and his national security team when they return to d.c. after the holidays. the "new york times" david sanger with a front wage rebuke writes this. quote, president trump entered the new year facing flare-ups of long-burning crises with iran and north korea that are directly challenging his claim to have reasserted american power around the world. trump whipsawed between talk of peace with iran over the holiday. but he did order the deployment of nearly 700 soldiers from the army's 82nd airborne division to the middle east. this came after an attack on the u.s. embassy in iraq. "washington post" warns of a

standoff with iran there. quote, trump now faces a potentially combustible situation where the u.s. and iran are elbowing for influence in u.s. and iraq as u.s. allies israel and saudi arabia urge a more forceful confrontation with iran. that nation's rogue leader promising the world a new strategic weapon in the near future. the development senger writes he is not disconnected from trump's political weakness. both the iranians and the north koreans seem to sense the vulnerability. the president's twin global crises are where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. at the table white house reporter for the l.a. "times" eli stokols, and senior writer for politico jake sherman is here. and ben rhodes joins us.

ben, you've been tweeting up a storm on all these crises, but i really want to take them one at a time and flesh out some of your observations and sharp criticisms for our viewers. let's start with what happened in iraq and the president's conduct there. >> well, nicole, i think the important thing here is that the origin of what we are seeing in iraq is this confrontational approach he has taken to iran over the last couple of years. since pulling out of the iran nuclear agreement, what we've seen is a steadying racheting up of provocations from iran. they have resumed parts of their nuclear programs. they have attacked tankers that go through key shipping lanes in the region. they have obviously shot down a u.s. drone. and now what we seen in iraq is, in response to u.s. air strikes in that country that were not coordinated or even notified to the iraqi government, what i think the iranian government did was send a message to the united states that they can throw their weight around in iraq, that they can threaten our embassy, that

they can essentially try to chase us out of that country. this is what you get when you have a foreign policy that is not really about anything other than acting on trump's reckless impulses, undoing pieces of the obama legacy and not thinking through what the consequences of the actions are. and now we see those consequences in realtime in a very dangerous and unstable situation inside of iraq. >> i want to stay with iraq, ben. and it's my observation that his policy toward iran is the most schizophrenic of all of trump's ill-thought out, but at least in the case of russia, they're all consistently pro-putin. in the case of north korea he has a delusion that they're beloved penpals and that there is a peace deal when there isn't. in iran he seems truly schizophrenic. there are enough people around him including his son-in-law who are arguing for a more confrontational approach. he called for peace with iran. how does that land in the region? >> you're exactly right, nicole, because basically the logic of

everything that trump has actually done is confrontation with iran. so he's imposed these new sanctions. he's pulled out of the nuclear deal. he alienated all of our allies. so we are all alone in this confrontation with iran. but when he gets up into the precipice of actually going into a war with iran, he pulls back. he doesn't want to actually have the war that his own policy has been taking us up to the precipice of. and that sends a message to the iranians that they can get away with anything, that trump won't cross certain lines, so the iranians know that they can provoke and provoke and provoke, push their influence, expand their influence in places like iraq, show that the united states is on its back foot, show that the united states is the one that is isolated in the world. and trump can't do anything to stop that. >> i also notice that this whipsawing is a threat that runs through the deployment of our troops. i was actually surprised to see that he had ordered 750 -- or

nearly 700 troops from the 82nd airborne after making such a show. and, again, we don't know his motives. but he makes such a show of undermining jim mattis, his former national security adviser john bolton, in pulling small amounts of troops in places where they're actually needed, where they are working alongside people like the kurds who are keeping us from having to send more. to send troops from the 82nd does certainly send a shock wave through the military families here in this country. >> no question. and schizophrenic is the right description of the policy, nicole, because donald trump likes to stand up and say that he's getting us out of these places, that he's pulling the troops out, that he's winding down these wars. but the reality is there are thousand more u.s. troops in the middle east because donald trump has deployed them to saudi arabia to provide essentially security for his partner there, mohammad bin salman. so we have seen him do things

like pull back. a few hundred u.s. troops are having an enormous impact in syria. that has certainly led to the killing of some of our kurdish allies who fought with us. there are going to be reemployments of u.s. troops in africa where they are trying to keep terrorists and insurgencies from developing. he is pulling back troops and then he is pouring thousands of troops to deal with this threat from iran that he has created by pulling out of the iran nuclear agreement because, again, he is responding to the impulse from saudi arabia or he is trying to protect our embassy. but the reason saudi arabia has been more threatened by iranian provocations and the reason that the iranians are lashing out inside of iraq is because of donald trump's decision to be more confrontational with iran. so he is not getting the effects he wants. we are not even focused on the fact that their nuclear program has resumed. and he is trying to have this

talking point that he's getting us out of the middle east when in fact there are more americans deployed there than when donald trump came into office. >> a trump ally warned me to never overthink trump. how much of his policy is simply doing opposite of that which president obama, your old boss, did? >> there was no logic to pull out of the iran nuclear agreement. his own intelligence community said iran was complying with that deal. i think he wanted to show he was different from obama. and then he set down this course of being confrontational with iran, knowing that he never wanted to go all the way into a war with iran. so that leads us to this very complicated situation where there is no logic to what he's doing, but it's making us less safe. it made the diplomats who were serving in iraq less safe. it has, in many ways, expanded it. and it has isolated the united states. so americans should know that we are less safe, less secure. we had a problem that had largely been dealt with with the

nuclear program at least. that is gone. and we are in this situation where every few months, nicole, we are on this show talking about? new flash point, some new risk of war between the united states and iran. that's where we are going to be so long as donald trump is president. >> and, eli stokols, iran's conduct just standing back and observing it from the outside clearly shows an emboldened iran, as with north korea. basically draws a line through these two rogue nations, these two american adversaries clearly emboldened after three years of donald trump. >> well, and i don't know if the president even though ahead to what iran would do. but when he pulls out of a nuclear deal, even though iran was in compliance with that agreement, and what they would do when he imposes tougher and tougher sanctions on them. maybe he just thought iran would bend and say, okay, you got us. but that was never realistic. if he talked to people at the state department, at the pentagon, they would have told him that's not how it's going to

work. and so, as ben points out, he did this -- i mean, most of his foreign policy decisions, they're motivated by domestic politics and by ego. and so, yes, he did this because it was a campaign promise and it was one of these things that was reasonably easy to do. it still took him over a year where he ratified the deal a couple more times before he finally withdrew from the iran nuclear deal. but he wanted to make good on this promise to undo something that obama had done because he had told all of his supporters in the country that it was bad because obama had done it. now you've got france talking with iran trying to bring trump along to come up with some new framework that is basically the old iran nuclear deal that trump can put his own seal of approval on. and the president won't go along with that. the reason why? because he is not the one leading it. he has told the country that foreign policy is simple, that the former presidents were just stupid, it's really simple, this isn't that hard. he thinks it's all about personality. he talks about how well he gets

along with the various leaders. but nothing deeper than that. and i think, you know, that's where we are. we have a foreign policy, you know, guy who doesn't do diplomacy. he does diplotainment. and the world is a lot more complex than that. the rest of the world has sized him up. >> that's why i don't really understand this because we are going into an election year. so what is the narrative? if these two situations hold static, which is if you're gambling they probably will. there is probably not going to be some sort of -- >> north korea is going to unveil a new strategic weapon and iran is literally attacking the american embassy in american. >> so static is not good. it's static but it's not good. so going into an election here, what is the foreign policy message for the president? it was supposed to be if he had his struthers that we got north korea to back off its nuclear program and iran is coming back to the table for a better deal with longer sunset, et cetera, et cetera. what is it now? i don't know the answer to that,

and i don't know that he has a plan to do something that would give himself a new narrative. that's why i'm confused about the politics of it. >> well, i would go further -- look, here he is on new year's eve. and this is clearly a delusional understanding of what's happening in k in. so i think it's more than a message problem. for somebody who doesn't read a pdb, who goes through national security staff faster than spouses, what it's he know about these hot spots? here he is on new year's eve. >> he likes me, i like him. we get along. he is representing his country. i'm representing my country. we have to do what we have to do. but he did sign a contract. he did sign an agreement talking about denuclearization. and that was signed number one sentence, denuclearization. that was done in singapore. and i think he's a man of his words. >> so here's what john bolton thought. it's clear why they're still not together. he tweeted this. how to respond to kim jong-un's threatening new year's remarks?

the u.s. should fully resume all canceled or down-sized military exercises in south korea. you know, obviously those two men weren't on the same page when it tame to turkey or north korea. but is trump delusional? >> well, he clearly is. and if there was a contract, then kim jong-un is in breach of contract. and i think what has happened is that the president decided on iran, as eli said, that he wasn't going to follow a foreign policy that was obama's, but there was never a plan b so that wasn't really a strategy. kim he decided he is going to have a foreign policy based on personality, as he's done in so many other parts of the world. but the problem with that is that there's not compliance on the other end. and so kim has really played donald trump and continues to play him all the while advancing his nuclear plans on the korean

peninsula. and it seems that there is nothing that the united states is going to be able to do right now to stop that. and the president doesn't have a plan for that, other than announcing that he's a friend. >> ben, let me bring you back in on this. it's been reported that one of the situations that president obama told president-elect-trump that he was most concerned about north korea. if you think if it's just about doing the opposite of obama, that seems to have pushed him into kim's arms. do you think that the president's posture toward kim, which has basically accelerated kim's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and he's now publicly talking about debuting new strategic weapons, are we at greater risk the longer trump is in charge of our diplomacy with north korea? >> oh, absolutely, nicole. and i think you're right. look, president obama did warn him in that oval office meeting this would be a top national security concern that our main

worry was that north korea would potentially develop the capability to put a nuclear warhead on an icbm that could reach the united states. president trump rushed into that diplomacy. i think diplomacy with north korea is a good idea. but he put that head of state summit first. there was no contract. there was some vague aspirational language. and then what happened, nicole, is that president trump got so invested in the appearance of success before anything had been agreed to, before there was verifiable agreement, a single inspector looking at that north korean nuclear program that kim jong-un recognized he could get away with anything because president trump was consistently praising him and saying that they're exchanging these beautiful letters and saying he should deserve the nobel peace prize. so kim looks at this and says this guy is so invested in the appearance that this is a success that i can keep building nuclear weapons, i can keep testing missiles. and now he is saying i can cross a new strategic line with this announcement on new year's eve.

and so the situation has gotten much worse. there are more nuclear weapons, north korea has advanced its nuclear missile programs. and president trump, because he wants to make it look like he achieved something historic in singapore, seems powerless or completely unwilling to do anything about it. >> you know, it's interesting that john bolton called for congressional hearings. republicans have been, you know, the walking dead when it comes to standing up to trump. but in the rare instances where they have found their pulse or their backbones or whatever, people like to call it up there. it's been around foreign policy crises. do you think there is any chance of the republicans listening to john bolton's call for congressional hearings? >> yeah, i guess. but what will that do? i don't know what the impact of that is. certainly not in the house because the house, donald trump's party lost the house. yes, there is a chance that they will bend to his will on that. but what's next? in very rare instances have senators been able to change the president's mind on foreign policy.

there have been a few where lindsey graham has intervened and has not stopped but put off decisions that trump was going to make. >> well, khashoggi. they spoke out on khashoggi. they passed iran sanctions against the president's hundred to nothing. they have tried to sort of reign in some of the most -- >> but the president is still able to do what he wants, and that is how our country is structured. >> after withdrawing the troops from syria because erdogan asked him to do it on the phone and he did it. they put mike pence on a plane, they sent him to turkey, he negotiated a ceasefire, five days, and we're really back where we were before. it didn't amount to much. and you're not hearing a sustained outcry from republicans on the hill. there is just so much that they could be up in arms about, and i just think at the end of the day sometimes they have to pick their battles, and they may not be able to move him anyway. >> it's stunning. i worked in a white house whose foreign policy was polarizing, at best, catastrophic in the views of a lot of democrats and

republicans were vocal critics. and i'm sure ben rhodes has a lot of memories of this too. it's stunning to see congress muted in the face of a president who's clearly endangering u.s. national security. >> as ben knows, the real leverage with north korea early on would've been to use a verifiable iran nuclear deal as leverage to get a deal out of north korea. and the president really squandered that, and republicans remained largely silent on that. >> last word for you, ben rhodes. >> i'd like to see the democrats take this up. democrats often prefer to talk about domestic issues. but they need to step up here. both the presidential candidates and in congress to paint this picture. because not only are we talking about iran and north korea. we're talking about around the world. the world is moving on without us. the u.s. is no longer the leading power in the world on most of these hish issues. he is basically an embarrassment on the world stage. but unless democrats are

stepping up and making a sustained case to the american people about why that is, it's not necessarily clear that that's going to break through to the american voter and the american people. >> i just got an idea. maybe this is part of my new year new me. the next time you're in d.c. we will go up to capitol hill. we'll ask them what their plans are in that category. ben rhodes, thank you for spending some time -- i just got a big chuckle from our capitol hill reporter here. newly uncovered emails show donald trump as the clear ring leader of the campaign to withhold military assistance from ukraine. those new documents show the president completely isolated from policymakers to the pentagon who worry that the president's moves were illegal. also ahead, ukraine gets dissed again. pompeo canceled a trip. 2020 democrats pull in big dollars as the first contests in iowa and new hampshire come closer, all those stories coming up. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger

and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

this round's on me.eat. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com

there is stunning new reporting from our friends at just security. that's a blog associated with the nyu law school which claims to have taken an exclusive look at the un-redacted version of a previously blacked out email exchange between the white house and the pentagon on the president's directive to halt congressionally approved military assistance for ukraine. these un-redacted emails build on reporting on sunday from the "new york times" about mounting tensions between the white house and the pentagon over the president's order to halt the aid until investigations into the bidens in the 2016 election were announced. one of the redacted emails from omb official michael duffey makes donald trump's role

abundly clear. according to just security, it says this. quote, clear direction from poetus to continue the hold. the reporter described the escalating internal crisis this way. quote, inside the trump administration, panic was reachi reaching fever pitch. we should know that nbc news has not viewed the emails, but senate democratic leader chuck schumer seized on them immediately calling them a, quote, devastating blow to senator mcconnell's push to have a trial without documents and witnesses. adding these emails further expose the serious concerns raised by trump administration officials about the proprioritiry and legality of the president's decision to cut off aid to ukraine to benefit himself. this new evidence also raises questions that can only be answered by having the key trump administration officials, mick mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffey, and robert blair testify under oath in a senate trial. let's bring in ryan goodman.

he is the co-editor in chief of "just security" and a former special to the chief council at the defense department. joyce vance joins us and garrett haake. ryan, take me through these new emails, what the un-redacted versions show the administration was trying to cover up. >> so the un-redacted emails cover an expanse of months of june to october. and they clearly show that the pentagon was sounding all the alarms that the hold on the aid was illegal. and, in fact, would compromise the ability to send the full funds to ukraine and that the omb, essentially, was covering it up. there are examples of the general counsel of the omb circulates talking points which include clear, false statements about these issues. and, in fact, the very senior, a member of the defense department, the comptroller sends an email to omb and says this statement is false, i can't

stand by it because it's inaccurate. she says, quote, unquote, it is just inaccurate. and that's just one example of it. and then another example is that the omb -- its general counsel sends to the congress a letter, a nine-page letter. and these emails seem to contradict the letter. the letter said that there was no conflict with the department of defense's lawyers over the idea as to whether or not the funds could be distributed. but it's plain from these un-redacted portions that's exactly what was going on. >> and we had a window into this when defense -- i think her name is laura cooper, when the defense department officials testified, it wasn't the most dramatic testimony because of the drama from some of the diplomats who were in the region. but they testified to exactly this. so it's stunning that the documents would seem to represent a greater threat to this administration and their case than even the testimony. if i could just ask you what

role doj has in the redactions, this is not privileged information. as you said, it was just embarrassing and part of the messaging. what would the case be for those redactions, legally speaking? >> so the department of justice releases the redacted versions, heavily redacted, some entire pages are blanked out on december 20th under a court order because they have been litigated by an outside group that wanted to see them for the public to be able to get some transparency. and the best argument on behalf of the department of justice is, well, some of the text that we blanked out is because it's internal deliberative processes. and not that it's otherwise national security or classified. the problem with the justice department's position would then be it was highly selective. they also then released some text in those emails and that text which they did not redact paints a very different picture, and the public would be entirely misled if they relied on just

the un-redacted portions. there is no legal issue, all of that is the part that's behind the redactions, the blacked out text that we now see all of it. because we have seen all of the emails in fully un-redacted form. >> ryan, is there more that you're in possession of that you all haven't reported yet? >> i think we reported everything we had here. in a certain sense your reference to the "new york times" recent report is very similar in part. they seem to have access of some of the same undedakota un-redac. is when they reply to mr. michael duffey at the omb and says i am speechless that you're putting this on us as though it's our fault. we have been warning you about this for weeks. and i think that was an important revelation on its own

terms. we were actually going to build ours around that in a certain sense, but the "new york times" came out with it first. >> ryan, stay with us for this conversation. i want to bring in joyce vance. joyce, this would seem like the kind of evidence that would be of great interest from, i hate to say just the democrats. you think anyone that wants to get to the bottom or would want to get to the truth would want to see documents like this. and you see, i guess, little flickers of interest in evidence from susan collins and lisa murkowski, moderate republicans. what is its impact if this were a real legal process? >> you know, you have to imagine it in terms of maybe a more accessible crime, like a bank branch manager who's accused of embezzlement, some of his employees talk about some fishy circumstances. and there is maybe some indication that there are documents, perhaps emails between this manager and maybe some of his other colleagues that might some ed some light on

this. and suddenly we have a jury and a judge that says we are not interested in hearing any of this evidence at trial. we are just going to leave it all as unknown and go ahead and acquit this bank manager of misconduct. and, of course, that is ridiculous. that is not how the truth-finding mission of the justice system works. it would be completely unacceptable in an average trial to suggest that this is the process that the president of the united states should be, quote, held accountable in is equally ludicrous. if this is the sort of process that we have in the senate, then it would be nothing other than a cover-up that's put into place by the republican members of the senate. all of the evidence, both documentary and witnesses has to be heard, or this will be a laughable process, be not a fair one. >> garrett, i talked to a congressional source today who said that the documents at this point are far more important to the senate process than even witnesses, that you just can't

sort of spin or assail or smear the documents written by these political appointees in most of these cases. >> that may very well be true, and it's more likely that the senate will get these documents, whether they get them by subpoena or whether they get them by news organizations ferreting them out. it's still possible that these witnesses would comply with a subpoena even if they get one. i think what we are seeing politically happen here over the last couple weeks, i do think it's reasonably likely that you will see documents called or documents subpoenaed based on the comments that lisa murkowski and susan collins made about being interested in that information. but you're not going to get it up front. susan collins was pretty explicit. democrats are going to lose this opening round of if they want to have a trial start with rules that will be favorable to them, they might be wearing for a very long time. but i do think the drip, drip, drip of these documents coming

out of the "new york times" and hereby just security shows that the schumer and pelosi strategy does have some value here, simply by sitting on their hands, we have more information now than we did when donald trump was impeached, and i think that does speak to the value of waiting, at least a little bit. >> it also points to sort of the target-rich environment that the witnesses and their documents represent. it makes the debate unnecessary in some ways. and i imagine at the beginning of the process an email that said from the person running omb, running the money clear direction from potus to continue to hold. it's just amazing how far this has shifted. there's now no question anywhere in the fact pattern from anyone's documents or anyone's testimony that this was anything other than a trump-directed extortion campaign against ukraine. >> leaving the facts aside just for one second. it's actually -- [ laughter ] >> i just want to comment on this witness thing. i hear you and i agree, but in the senate it's actually

remarkably easy if you have two or three people to effect the outcome of anything. so, if susan collins and lisa murkowski and one other person do indeed want witnesses, they can get witnesses. let's be clear about this. being uncomfortable with a person and demanding something are two very different things. being uncomfortable is trivia. okay, that's good to know. now will you go into mitch mcconnell's office, as they did during kavanaugh when they got the fbi to do a second investigation, whether you liked it or not, they effected the, at least in the immediate, the process. will they do that again here? because they have the power to do that. they are one short -- >> just explain that by voting with the democrats. >> by voting against any rules package, any guidelines for the trial that doesn't include witnesses. so, they have the ability to do it here. so anything short of getting witnesses at this point if they have three is a failure of exercising the power of the

majoritiarian institution, which is the senate. >> we are going to pick this up on the other side. ryan goodman, congratulations on the scoop. and thank you so much for spending some time with us here. we are grateful to have you and your reporting. after the break, another trip to ukraine scrapped by another trump administration official, this time it's secretary of state mike pompeo who's pulling the plug on a planned visit. how that's going over in ukraine, next. the season on the sleep number 360 smart bed. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is $1299. ends sunday

we've been talking about that brand-new explosive reporting in just security, un-redacted emails that show that multiple officials, senior officials at the white house, senior officials at the pentagon, one, knew that this was directed by donald trump to withhold military aid for ukraine, and, two, that it was illegal, donna. >> look, i think that as long as this window is open and more evidence comes forward, even if it's in news reports, then it increases the pressure.

now, whether that's enough to get to the numbers that you need to demand witnesses and documents in the senate, i'm not really sure yet, because, as we've been discussing, it's hard to count who those four senators are at this stage. listening to some of the rumblings does remind you of other times when these same senators have mumbled, but they haven't really done anything. >> well, and if you had to message how this would be, i mean, if you're a republican in a vulnerable state and you can't say, hey, i want to get to exoneration, but i can't do it unless i have evidence. i mean, the democrats have tools to work with that would be politically perilous for republicans to ignore. >> yeah, and i think as much heat as some republicans might be feeling now like susan collins talking about, oh, maybe we should have witnesses. if they have witnesses and have a full trial and the situation is crystallized further over several weeks in the senate, it's not going to be easier for

them to vote to acquit. so maybe it's a calculation to sort of take your lumps on this and just go along and get this over with. because, to your earlier point about the president's involvement which is corroborated by this recent, the emails that were redacted, but, you know, by seeing those, by the "new york times" story, by all the testimony on the house side, they are all telling the same story. we heard republicans like jim jordan and the house already conceding that point. the thing was, well, the aid got released at the end of the day. they weren't saying the president didn't direct us or that the aid was -- they acknowledge everything that happened and they just said, well, was fine in the end. >> and house republicans and the president have made it much harder for those republicans who might want to have a more expanded trial here like susan collins to do so. they have backed any republican who might want a broader process into a corner by saying there was nothing wrong here, they want a complete exoneration. they have been totally locked arms between the house

republicans and the president up until now. and now vulnerable senate republicans are going to be the ones to have to stick their neck out on this? susan collins is in a unique place because she has voted against this president on important matters already like the health care vote. but if you're cory gardner or thom tillis or mcsally, your best bet is to hold on tight. >> what a tragedy if that's where we are. vulnerable republicans are the only ones. if i might lose anyway, i'm going to go down in a blaze of glory and maybe do the right thing for 15 minutes. i actually don't understand the analysis. >> why start now? if you've made your political bed already, now is when you pull your head out of the sand on it on something that you think the president's done wrong? >> i agree with garrett. but also often times people misjudge what vulnerable senators have to do. vulnerable republican senators still have to get republicans to vote for them in their election. cory gardner still has to get

republicans in rural colorado to vote for him. is he going to do that? >> but what i guess what makes him vulnerable is there aren't enough of them. >> eli knows colorado much better than i do. and the question that we're not asking here is what if they do subpoena these witnesses and they don't show up? i mean, the whole idea that the senate trials -- >> or against the white house and you're a republican senator. >> right. and the idea that they're going to just somehow show up now. >> and the president's at 43%? i guess i don't understand -- and i worked in a republican white house where no one was afraid to stand up to the white house. so it's not a republican thing. it's a trump thing. it's a mob thing. it's a, we're going to get you with a mean tweet. it's the lamest, wimpiest, most pathetic thing. where are the people that used to care about ethics and government? rob portman was an omb director. he knows exactly -- he had michael duffey's job. he could very easily tell if

this email is legal or illegal. it's binary. what does he say? >> i don't know what to tell you. i just feel like, politically speaking, so many of these republican senators have gone so far down this road. if they wanted to turn around now, there are no bread crumbs to lead them back. you have made your bed at this point, and i think just politically speaking taking the moral calculation out of it, and i know that's like not what anyone wants to do. but if you're just looking at this in a lizard-brain political way, you're in it now, and there is just not the value back out. [ laughter ] >> and the vulnerable members and so as fast as you can dismiss this and move on from this, the easier it may be for cory gardner. >> move on to what? we don't think he's going to be impeached for doing the same thing to another country? i guess my point is why do they think moving on from this makes it better? >> i don't know. i think just because, look, the facts of this case are so clear, if you want to have a month where the entire country is riveted by what trump did and

you're replaying the house impeachment and you're hearing potentially from other witnesses and seeing more documents, that will make it all the more glaring when republicans vote to akw itthat they are just -- it's tribalism, it's politics. it's what you call a mob. it's not actually looking at the facts of the case. and that makes them more vulnerable, i think, than where they are. mitch mcconnell, in a way, has stood up to this white house because donald trump wants a show trial. he doesn't want the trial democrats want. he wants the whistle-blower, he wants adam schiff, he wants biden, he wants those people testifying. he's not going to get it. and part of that is because mcconnell knows that circus also doesn't help. >> but mcconnell is perfectly happy being the second most unpopular person in the country as long as the most unpopular is whoever he is running against. he will take the shots on this if he can protect his majority, as long as he, you know, is one step ahead of amy mcgrath or whoever the democratic nominee ends up being. >> and for democrats is that the public wants witnesses, the public wants a real trial.

if the republicans in the senate want to defy that, then they've got to live with that for 2020, and i think their calculation is if they can. >> could i add one more brief point which is if you think that mitch mcconnell is the kind of politician that is swayed by things, if you believe that, then i don't know where to even start the argument. he held the supreme court seat open and withstood all sorts of pressure. if we think that holding these articles, mitch mcconnell is going to say we're going to go to the trial you want, i don't see that happening. after the break, big fundraising numbers in the democratic frontrunners, that story next. my dad joined the navy and helped prosecute the nazis in nuremberg. their values are why i walked away from my business, took the giving pledge to give my money to good causes, and why i spent the last ten years fighting corporate insiders who put profits over people.

i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. because, right now, america needs more than words. we need action. looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results? try olay total effects. one dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects.

when in your gut,dent you feel confident to take on anything. with benefiber, you'll feel the power of gut health confidence every day. benefiber is a 100% natural prebiotic fiber. good morning mrs. johnson. benefiber. trust your gut.

it took me 45 minutes to say this, but happy new year, it's now officially a presidential election year in america, and the earliest test for the 2020 democrats, the iowa caucuses are

just 32 days away. how did this happen? the field of candidates is now done to 14. former housing secretary julian castro, the only latino candidate, announced this morning that he's suspending his campaign. the "new york times" writes this about that. quote, his exit is the latest departure. the start of the new year also marks the end of a quarter which means candidates have begun releasing their fundraising totals. bernie sanders with more than $23.5 million, the largest for any candidate in a quarter so far in this primary race. pete buttigieg also announced a strong total, nearly 25 million followed by joe biden who raised more than 22.7 million. andrew yang reported $16.5 million, more than the biden campaign raised the previous quarter. we are still waiting to here how elizabeth warren did, but her campaign has already acknowledged its fundraising has slipped.

donald trump with $46 million to which he credits his impeachment. but trump's haul isn't even half of the total raised across the democratic field. national political reporter for "the washington post," robert costa joins us. big headlines seem to be bernie sanders haul, joe biden's rebound and maybe warren's slippage. what am i missing? >> well, nicole, i just got back friday april to the newsroom. and it's evident based on my reporting going from townhall to townhall that his base from 2016 remains very much with him. he is trying to carve out a space in iowa as the liberal favorite in the race. in particular, as senator warren is dealing with some more struggles on the fundraising front, you see senator sanders ascending with this new fundraising number. he is trying to also reach out to minority voters in a way he did not so much in 2016 in places like iowa. even though the state is 90% white, he is trying to target

that other 10% at times and get them to come out. >> do you think there is a chance, or are they talking about trying to win in iowa? is that the sanders' campaign goal? >> the sanders campaign, when you sit down with senator sanders or his top strategist, they know that the race is crowded, but they see that as a benefit for sanders. klobuchar against vice president biden and then pete buttigieg drawing big crowds in iowa, they see that space relatively crowded, and senator warren is getting eaten into, in terms of her coalition from boot you the jury a-- buttigieg and others. they think they can maybe win with anywhere between 20 and 30%. >> the top 3 and if warren is fourth, that would make the top four fundraisers in the democratic field three white men. if it's warren, one white woman.

what is the feel about the fact that the campaigns of kamala harris or julian castro or cory booker haven't thrived? >> there is a lot of discomfort among democratic voters in the . i talked to voter after voter over the past week and they really feel bad when you ask them about the exit of senator harris and now secretary castro. they wonder if their party is as diverse in its makeup in the presidential field as its voter and electorate is across the country. and they do worry about iowa being first. even those who live in iowa are grappling with whether it makes sense to have a majority-white state start the process in the democratic presidential race. >> that's very, very interesting. usually, those early states are very proud and hang on very tight to that spot. >> no doubt about it. >> yeah. yeah. but they're open to changes. it's interesting. robert costa. thank you for spending some time with us. the table jumps in on all this next.

with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, your plans can change in minutes.

your head wants to do one thing, but your gut says, "not today." if your current treatment isn't working, ask your doctor about entyvio. entyvio acts specifically in the gi tract to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

so, garrett, before you ended up on the impeachment beat, you were on the 2020 beat. now is it bizarre to -- >> trying to keep on eye on both things for sure. >> you have any predictions? >> the fundraising numbers are interesting to me. i mean, bernie sanders is going nowhere. he's going to be in this thing until july. till the convention. he's going to have more money than he can spend. by the way, it's going to serve him really well during the impeachment hearings if he has to be going back forth.

his campaign has said they'll leave a plane on the tarmac. i'm interested in the money andrew yang has raised. that's been confusing to me. he's been under the radar. his campaign says he's not getting covered very much. $16 million is a lot of money. i mean, he could make a play for support here if somebody else falters. and then the joe biden number's interesting to me. it's bigger than his third quarter number. the rumor have been exaggerated. i feel like every month, it's that biden is slipping or there's some new struggle. but we could be -- we could have very tight races in all these early states. right down to the end at this point. >> donna. >> yeah, i mean i think the surprising thing about the fourth quarter numbers thus far is that, you know, biden raised a modest amount. same basically as he did before. but his polling numbers remain the same. and i think as long as that is true, he's going to hold on. and bernie is, you know, bernie's numbers because he's

raised from so many individual donors. i mean, he's just got more money. >> and more donors. >> and more donors. and with pete buttigieg, i'm really not sure where he goes even if he has the money. he just doesn't seem to be catching hold quite so i think there's a lot to be learned and we'll wait to see what elizabeth warren reports. she's kind of slipping. >> eli. >> given the dynamics we're looking at right now with a strong bernie sanders and a joe biden who really is still probably the front-runner, you just have to wonder are we going to see a repeat of 2016 when you get to the general election and if bernie doesn't win, do his supporters come into the fold? the electorate in iowa, that is not the electorate democrats need to turn out to win a general election. and so we're looking at the nomination fight right now. but potentially, there's some problems looking when you transition to the general election down the road. >> last word. >> democratic field -- donald trump which shows if nothing else at least some energy on the opposition to the president. >> by a lot.

>> yeah. >> more than double. all right. we have to sneak in our very last break of the new year. we'll be right back. last break r we'll be right back. miralax works with the water in your body to unblock your system naturally. and it doesn't cause bloating, cramping, gas, or sudden urgency. miralax. look for the pink cap. quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette

my thanks to garrett, eli, donna, jake. and i think i forgot to thank our friend joyce earlier. thank you, joyce. most of all, thanks to you for watching. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press daily." i'm katy tur in new york and in for chuck todd. 2020 is finally here. a year democrats have been focusing on obsessing about, even panicking over since donald trump was elected more than three years ago. and it's all unfolding in the wake of the president's historic impeachment in the