my thanks to you for watching all week long. "mpt live" with chuck todd starts now. ♪ welcome to friday.

it is "mpt live" and good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington where the way appears to be over. 23 days since the house's historic vote to impeach president trump. and speaker nancy pelosi has told the caucus to prepare to transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate next week and then set in motion impeachment trial in the united states senate. here's what she wrote to colleagues. quote, i have asked chairman nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the senate. i will be consulting with you at our tuesday house democratic caucus meeting on how we proceed further. obviously, there are a number of big questions about what happens next. and what it means for, well, everything. starting with what exactly is the senate trial going to look like and how soon could it get started? also, how badly is it going to scramble the democratic presidential field. remember three of the top five candidates in iowa are all

jurors in the senate trial and force them to significantly scale back their campaign activity all in the run-up to those caucuses in iowa. and maybe beyond because if you use clinton's impeachment trial as a guide, 37 days from when they turned the articles over to the verdict, it is possible the trial goes on all the way through the nevada caucuses. ultimately, why did speaker pelosi inch closer to a senate trial now? yesterday she defended the position say she wouldn't send them until mcconnell provided more detail. so what clarity does she have today that she did not have yesterday? or 23 days ago? and did she make this move today with any eye on the 2020 calendar? joining me now is nbc news colleague jeff bennett. all right, jeff. so, is there an explanation of what the rationale? why -- why is today the day being okay to talk about sending

over the articles and why was yesterday not the day? >> reporter: chuck, i'll start with the public line from democrats and fill in the gaps with what folks on the hill are saying. publicly the democrats said that nancy pelosi's public pressure campaign worked. right? that this three-week standoff allowed for more evidence, new revelations to come forward that democrats say proved their theory that point two president trump being culpable of the great many things democrats alleged in the ukraine dealings and saying it puts a finest focus on the ways in which republicans are in cahoots with the white house to produce a sham trial. okay. privately democrats say that the usefulness of nancy pelosi's strategy had really outlived itself. that as you know in politics timing and messaging accounts for lot in terms of timing the strategy had really outlived the moment. in terms of messaging there was a risk that the process

arguments that democrats were making about a senate trial were taking the focus away from the more significant questions anlt president trump's behavior. i think a lot of people here on the hill thought after you had john bolton, the former national security adviser for whatever personal reasons said he would testify if he was subpoenaed, a lot of people thought that nancy pelosi would have used that as the political cover that she would need to say, you know what? he proves the point, the strategy worked, let's transmit the articles of impeachment, but remember, almost immediately after the announcement the impeachment proceedings were overtaken by the developments out of iraq and iran and today you had cracks emerging with democrats including dianne feinstein saying if democrats believe impeachment is urgent and serious transmit the articles of impeachment without delay. house leadership believed that to be true. i've also talked to people close to the speaker saying that the way in which she handled this,

she found a way to reassert her own authority. this is someone who as you well know has served through six administrations, has helped to bring about the passage of financial reform, obamacare, the repeal of don't ask don't tell. this is someone who wanted to do this on her own terms and has done that, chuck. >> walk me over to the other side of the chamber. do we have an idea of how much to the letter of rules is mcconnell going to be? they transmit the articles say wednesday it appears. >> reporter: yeah. >> 1:00 p.m. thursday, the trial begins or are they going to buy mlk weekend the way congress normally does buy time of a recess with the jet fumes of the recess around the corner? >> reporter: technically the trial begins with the articles of impeachment. the arguments to see action on the senate floor likely won't

start until after mlk day and then if there are witnesses you can bet it goes through certainly the iowa caucuses, perhaps even the new hampshire primary. without witnesses, maybe wrap it up by the end of the year and that's an open question. talking about how this runs parallel to the clinton proceedings democrats take issue with that saying this is not a carbon copy because as you know during the clinton process all of the witnesses were already on the record before the trial in the senate started. it was a question of what witnesses will be reheard. now, of course, you have people who certainly have a story to tell and so far haven't told that story to the key investigators, chuck. >> that's for sure. could mean that the key moments of the trial are votes by the senators really that they may be the most interesting moments of the trial but not perhaps the trial itself. geoff bennett, thank you for joining me now.

joining me now is ann guerin and matthew cognetti and donna edwards. ann, let me start. i want to play the following exchange between speaker pelosi and a reporter yesterday and try to understand what has changed. take a listen. >> are you satisfied that there will be a fair trial in the senate? >> no. >> what feedback have you gotten from your colleagues on not sending the articles? >> absolutely total cooperation. it cracks me up to see on tv, oh, the pressure, the pressure. >> no. >> i have news for them. you don't have a story. >> we have a thousand flowers blossoming. >> yesterday she was waiting to get indications. mcconnell didn't do anything. >> no. >> mcconnell has done what --

look. pelosi and mcconnell might be the two best leaders that either party could have. this feels like she was trying to smoke out mcconnell and she failed. >> well yeah. a couple things happened. to your point, nothing happened between yesterday and today that at least as far as we know was -- had significantly changed the playing fild. what changed was the calculation. yesterday she felt like she might still have some leverage. we saw half a dozen or more democrats start to waiver, get pulled back into the tent. not seeming happy about it. so she was losing control of her own caucus and as geoff said, the equilibrium changed. the longer she waits now the more she undermines their basic argument for her entire strategy here which was we have to make sure that the senate is giving us a level playing field.

obviously she was trying to smoke out whatever she could smoke out. bolton was a bit of a surprise to everyone. >> which is to me was the exit ramp. >> yeah, right, exactly. >> declare victory and move on. she didn't. >> he brought himself into the conversation by saying that a court ruling had made it now incumbent on him to show a little hem line. but that wouldn't have happened in the same context if she had moved ahead three weeks ago. >> all right. but we are here now. donna. so i do think any time this is a process argument democrats are on the losing side and substantive side republicans on the losing side and she allowed the process to dominate the last two weeks. >> i think that the argument and the space she created in the 23, 24 days is actually quite important. as you said, bolton kind of

coming forward not expected. really exposing mitch mcconnell and keep in mind that we began with her holding the articles of impeachment because mitch mcconnell said very overtly he was coordinating with the white house and he was going to protect the president. and not be an impartial juror and i think hearing that from pelosi's standpoint, house democrats, when's going to protect the work product? who's going to protect what we have going into a hearingen suring a fair trial? i think the american people got that because to my knowledge right now the american people still believe overwhelmingly that there should be witnesses and there should be a fair trial. >> matthew, you quote today saying mcconnell got the best of pelosi basically. let me ask you this. isn't it possible that mcconnell probably thought he could have really short circuited this trial and she did sort of at least force him to -- he can't

in the words of pat toomey put a bullet in this thing the second it comes over. >> i don't know. i think he was on the record even before the impeachment vote took place if the house did vote to impeach he was bound to hold a trial and then very early in -- even before the vote in december he announced that he would abide by the precedent of the clinton trial in 1999 and that's the key to holding this caucus together. i think the schumer letter and pelosi's holding of the articles meant to divide the republican caucus. >> didn't work. >> divided the democratic caucus. some of the democratic senators. so once mcconnell pointed to the clinton precedent saying we have this first vote to establish the opening arguments and then a second vote on calling for witnesses i think all of the republican senators said that's good enough for us even those who may be tempted down the road to vote for witnesses. >> may all vote for witnesses. >> i don't know if they all do.

>> corey booker. >> you need four and there are one or two to want to vote to call witnesses. >> all right. this is gong to have a huge impact on the presidential race but we don't know how. i'm sorry. we know it will impact. elizabeth warren said of course it matters. we did a selfie line. don't tell me it doesn't matter to do face to face. the most important is face to face, hand shake, to ask a question, to do a pinky promise, all that is lost if we can't be there in person. we went ahead and if you abide by the exact rules of the clinton trial 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., okay, warren, sanders and probably have the money to do back and forth. i don't know if booker, bennett or klobuchar do. playboy car pool or plane pool. maybe the five of them. >> they could make that an argument. we're going great.

>> yes. i mean, about all they have is you quickly get to the airport and maybe you can do a morning event. >> that's right. at this point they might only have a week. right? say this doesn't even really begin until -- i don't know. >> week from tuesday. mlk, 21st. >> exactly. so 22, 3, 4, 5? right? only one more week until you're on top of the iowa caucus so they depending on how long it goes they might only have a few days on the other end after the trial is over to be in iowa full-time. >> there's the logistics issue. but there's also biden. right, donna? help or hurt him? i don't know. i won't say either way. >> i think it is unclear. i think at least from biden's perspective he and buttigieg are able to be in iowa, new hampshire to make the closing

arguments arguments and for the other senator the closing argument is probably made on the debate stage. >> right. looks like they will get a debate now. the articles transmitted to the day essentially after the debate. saves the debate. >> i think they have to use that as an opportunity to speak to the nation and make the closing arguments in the states. >> when you try to figure out mcconnell with witnesses and some people say what's his priority? senate majority or donald trump? he cares about the majority, majority, majority. i assume he is not interested in the biden games. what kind of pressure is under on that? >> i think senator mcconnell wants to wrap the trial up as quickly as possible and the majority is linked to donald trump's fate. if donald trump loses election, re-election in 2020, most likely the senate's going to go -- >> i don't disagree with that but it's not a guarantee it works that way and i think tom

tillis thinks he can win and don't they have to prepare to win out their candidate winning the state? >> we have the new iowa poll coming out today and some senators say i stay in washington. right? a few of them aren't going to make it. i think that is clear by now. >> but that is what i wonder. what is biden doing with this? is he just ignoring it and if there is a moment where they decide to try to make him a spectacle it certainly puts the democratic senators in an interesting spot. >> probably the safest place for him to be is iowa because people are not asking him 9 zillion detailed questions of impeachment every day and he can run for president. he can go around and do -- a lot of retail politicking that many of the candidates doing more of than he has so far. >> the big star witness if it's john bolton, the president

indicating in the interview with fox to air later tonight that he plans to cite executive privilege with bolton and the chief justice will have an interesting ruling immediately now. >> the argument will be specious for bolton and you know it leaves open a possibility i think still that there's going to be a subpoena that's going to have to be litigated. >> but in this case because the chief justice is there, i don't think they have -- like, you know, i think he decides but then -- >> does he? >> although the majority -- >> overrule him. >> overrule him. it's unclear how that works out. >> i think he has the option to decide on a tie but that's an option. who knows -- if he doesn't exercise it then ties go to the -- >> you have to say john roberts did everything to try to stay out of the polarized politics. >> i don't expect him to -- >> sorry, mr. chief justice. you're going to have to get drawn into this one.

stick around. up ahead, whenever it happens there's definitely an impeachment trial coming. what would it look like? how would it go? what do you do as a juror? i'm going to ask a former senator who was a juror in the clinton impeachment trial. maybe money can buy you love or at least enough likes. new 2020 polling shows the billionaires in the race getting big numbers as long as no other candidates are really campaigning in that state. thanks to deep pockets. we'll be back right after this. e training me to become an even smarter, stronger investor. exactly. ♪(rocky theme music) fifty-six straight, come on! that's it, left trade right trade. come on another trade, i want to see it! more! ♪ 80s-style training montage? yeah. happens all the time. ♪

[ gunshot ] [ multiple gunshots ] [ orchestral music playing ]

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience.

are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. will be back. as we said at the top of the show the wait for nancy pelosi to send the impeachment articles appears to be over. what exactly could that trial look like? what does it mean for the senators who will be the jurors? here's what republican senator collins a juror herself in the '90s voting to acquit president clinton said about a trial. quote, it will mean day after day sitting in chamber, listening to the two sides,

writing questions to answer to go through the chief justice. members who have not been through this before finds it's a great deal of work. someone else here former democratic senator of north dakota, byron dorgan and voted to acquit president clinton in 1999. good to see you. look good. >> i feel good. >> excellent. this is what you want to help viewers out. using the same rules. morning business and this -- walk me through it. >> sitting at your desk. it is a sober, joyless moment to go into that sort of jury perspective for the senate and you're at your desk. you don't feel like you can leave the room or be out of the context of what is going on. >> didn't have many flip phones back then. >> no flip phones and couldn't bring a laptop on the floor but the point is you need to be there.

you need to listen. you need to listen intently and understand what's happening and it's not a circumstance of a lot of back and forth. people kid each other about -- none of that. it is just very sober. >> what are your rights as a juror? it is different than a regular juror. if the house manager's presenting a case and if you have a question, what do you do? >> well, you actually send the question to the chief justice. >> so i mean literally, write this on a card? >> preprinted card. mr. chief justice, senator blank from blank state wishes to ask the blank a question. >> put your name on it? can't have an anonymous question. >> house managers or the president's counsel the following question and write out the question. it goes to the chief justice. the chief justice then reads the question or hands the question to the counsel or to president's counsel or the managers from the house. that's the way it works. again, it's a very sober and somber time in the u.s. senate

because the people understand the consequences of this. >> and while the chief justice presides, the majority in the senate make the decisions. right? this is where it is not a jury trial. >> no, no. the chief justice has a rather limited role honestly. i have talked about the tyranny of the majority with senator mcconnell and did in the obama nomination for the supreme court. if you have the majority and are willing to use it in any way you choose to use it and the fact is the majority with respect to an impeachment trial means power, you make the decisions and very important for senator mcconnell to convince himself and probably is right that every republican senator is with him in terms of setting up the conditions for the trial that existed with respect to the clinton trial but let me make a quk point here. there is nothing resembling the clinton impeachment trial. >> explain that. >> kenneth starr did three and a half years of investigations bringing every single witness in

front of the grand jury, testifying under oath. every bit of documentation, all the documents were available and he made them available. he produced the report and interestingly enough in the house of representatives they didn't hold an investigation, no hearings for investigation. they just convened to see whether to impeach him. they had the documents to work with of the ken starr report and all about president clinton. in this case, you have a circumstance where the key people that should testify were prevented from testifying by the president. the documents should be available were not made available because the president wouldn't make them available so you must have witnesses. it's true that we had a few witnesses in the clinton impeachment but they'd already been long deposed, we heard nothing from them. which is fine. >> we have a situation to have an interesting ruling so john bolton said he wants to testify. >> right. >> i think you heard president trump will try to prevent that

citing executive privilege. the chief justice of the supreme court is going to be there to -- right. so he can make a ruling on this if he chooses to but he doesn't if he chooses to. correct? even if he does a ruling the majority of the senate could overrule him? >> he can slide off making a ruling if he chooses to do that and probably want to try to do and i don't think he speaks for the supreme court and america. >> afraid of the partisan wars. we get that. >> in any event, whatever he decides if mr. mcconnell has 51 votes he can overturn it' nope, no executive privilege, mr. president. john bolton, you have to testify. mcconnell says go to a vote. >> absolute power on the part of mcconnell with 51 people that will follow him. >> can any senator call for a motion? >> don't know whether there's a circumstance when you can stand up and offer a motion but motions are available and interestingly enough it may well

be a circumstance if senator mcconnell had the votes to try for a dismissal and so you never get to a point of votes on witnesses but it can be hard for certain republican senators, they don't want to vote to dismiss. >> could it happen any moment? >> any time. >> any of the senators. for all we know a senator may introduce it. almost just to see what happens. right? >> the sad part of all of this is different than the impeachment of clinton. that was about sex and lying about sex. dale bumpers said when it's not about the money, it is about money. that was his presentation to the senate. so but then that was about sex and lying. in this case it's about the president saying to a president of a foreign country, listen, do me a favor. i need you to announce an investigation into a potential democratic opponent and by the way the president's supposed to know if you do you get rewarded

or don't penalized, $400 million. that's a vastly different circumstance. >> does schumer and the minority have any leverage or power? >> not much in the senate unfortunately. >> normally they do. more than in the house. >> generally true. the minority in the house has i object. >> okay. >> so that in normal senate business that i object is important. but in this case it takes 67 votes in impeachment to remove a president and should because that's a big deal. but it's also the case that 51 votes allows you to go into a trial and do whatever you want in that trial. and i'm sure they want to make it a short trial and the president will want to do whatever he can do at the end of the day to say i was impeached but acquitted. >> state of the union is scheduled to be the day after iowa. that's all around there, too. anyway, byron dorgan, this was fascinating. i assume we'll want more context

from you. good to see you. >> good to see you. a new page in the ever evolving script and why the president ordered the killing of a top iranian general. with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital.

heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

actions speak louder than words. she was a school teacher. 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. we had specific information on an imminent threat and those threat streams included attacks on american embassy. period. full stop. >> welcome back. that was secretary pompeo's latest justification for the

strike against commander qassem soleimani. a far cry from the first explanation by the department of defense that read general soleimani actively developing plans to attack american diplomats and service members in iraq and throughout the region. since the strike we heard an ever-changing series of justification from the trump administration of what prompted it. >> he was actively plotting in the region to take actions. >> okay. i just -- so was the justification in that he's been a destabilizing force in the region for so long or an imminent threat? >> never one moment or uninstance, it is a collective, a full situational awareness of risk and analysis. >> if you look for imminence, look no further than the days that led up to it. >> looking to blow up the embassy. >> we don't know which day but it was very clear. >> ann, state department was your beat for a long time. there's part of me that wonders why are they -- there's --

because half of secretary pompeo's rational to me was, this is a long time coming, what we should do and he himself is a an advocate of this and it was imminent and a big foggier. why they feel the need to stand behind that other than the legal argument i guess when even plenty of people think it was justified legally you could have a debate about it. >> two things. yes, they do not want to invite international legal challenges. the u.n. secretary-general among others is upset about this. and, you know, then you had in the intervening days you had republican members of congress open revolt -- i mean, only two of them, but still on the senate side in open revolt at what they thought was just wholly insufficient ian insulting

briefing by pompeo and esper on the hill the other day about justification in which pompeo and esper were not answered two central questions. why did you do it? what is your red line for doing it again? or further action. essentially they got blown off and they're mad and so now pompeo has had to do it, we had to kill him before leaving the grounds at the baghdad airport. >> matthew, what's confusing anlt this is it seems as if you -- that isn't why you took him out. you had an opportunity to take him out but they're searching for justification it looks like when you know there's part of mike pompeo says we didn't need it. >> i think it has to do with the slippery nature of imminent. does imminent mean the next day? does imminent mean -- >> they describe soleimani was doing is what he is doing for a

decade. >> right. >> targeting american assets in the middle east. >> just rings a debate because we know what he did for a living and we knew that he was going to continue to do that absent any significant reprisals so i think from the administration's perspective the more they play this kind of media gotcha game is a distraction from the overall policy but i don't think they want to play this game. i think this is mainly people continuing to ask them what do you mean by imminent? >> it is creating a sense of, okay, it was -- again, i go back to congressman pompeo wanted to see this happen years ago. this is not -- you do get the sense he is abiding by policy and up to him he would have pushed it further. >> well okay. soleimani was a bad guy, had been for at least a decade. and the question is, i think for this administration, they keep getting these questions asked of

them because you have no credibility because they have lied and lied and lied about so many things this now they can't get the stories straight about this and i think the question of imminence matters, to our allies and friends and it matters to members of congress who trying to get a straight answer and the arrogance of the administration in not providing that even to the gang of eight and the one that is really matter. >> i think it produces risk for this administration. the iranian proxies are likely to try to do something to retaliate, part of the supposed operation or not. if something happens then there's going to be questions, oh, well, did you not target the operation? this is the difference between targeting mohammed atta versus khalid shaikh mohammed. you have the planner and the attacker. >> today my "post" colleagues

reported a second unsuccessful a attempt against a deputy or deputy to deputy to soleimani. >> to me flashbacks of the al qaeda days to -- >> number two of al qaeda. >> exactly. >> like the world's worst job. number two whacked and then another new number two but the point of it is though that the administration had a larger target set than soleimani on that specific day so they were going after the kuds force which is different than going after soleimani himself and this -- the failed attempt was in yemen. we don't know what happens next. certainly the force is not going away and will be able to continue to sow terrorism itself and through the other proxies absent -- >> are we having the wrong debate? is the debate whether this was a terrorist organization targeted or was it a commander in a country? you know what i mean? that to me is --

>> the distinction no longer matters. we have to return to the events in december. right? >> right. >> there was we knew implicitly trump would not take violent action against iran if they shot down stuff but if they killed american lives then he would respond so what happened in december? they launched an attack in a base in iraq that killed an american contractor and wounded several of our personnel and led to a violent response against a militia. what happens? we have the basically attack -- on our embassy. >> protests that turned into attack. >> because of the quick response team they were able to ward that off but i think the president felt that something more needed to be done and needed to shock the iranians into stopping or pausing at the very least these attacks certainly on the personnel. that's why he took out soleimani. going around in the senate they say no one escalates more or quicker than donald trump and there are plenty of republican senators that ran against him in

2016 who know that. right? that is exactly what he did with iran and now we know because of their response, right, no mitt romneys were killed and not the response that they were fully capable of, they got that message, too. >> all except the problem is that i think -- >> that's a confident -- >> i'm not confident at all. >> barack obama said al qaeda was done. george w. bush said mission accomplish ds. >> not saying the threat is over but iran had the cape blabilitif doing much more and likely mean the end of the regime and they don't want to risk this. >> it is not over. i think that this is the problem that members of congress are having is that once you've escalated to this point when the next attack comes however it comes how do you -- you can't do anything less and so it actually ups the ante in an environment we can't afford and don't control. >> that's why i believe we have

to eight to six months. the proxies do something. are we still in iraq? >> not just over there. >> i think ultimately this policy will get judged and the president's decision judged after we see what happens over next six momts. that's my way of ending the conversation. coming up, surprising poll result this is seem to show the power of the purse in the 2020 race for president as long as your opponents are not on the air. we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪

♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. it's beautiful. you want to take it for a test-drive? definitely.

we're gonna go in that. seriously? i thought we were going on a test drive. we are. a heavy-duty test drive. woo-hoo! this is dope. i've never been on a test drive like this before. this silverado offers a 6.6 liter duramax diesel that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. awesome! let's take these logs up that hill. let's do it. wow! this truck's a beast. are you sure there's a trailer back there? this is incredible. best test drive ever. [chuckle]

welcome back tonight. i'm obsessed with the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words but evidently some may be worth more. new york xwofr nor cuomo working for months on a perfect image to capture the 2020 agenda and celebrate the accomplishments. something that speaks to the people. so without further ado, ladies and germs, i give you the per feck image. turn of the century before last

campaign poster. not the 20th century, my friends. the one before that one. complete with vintage art work and old timey typeface. this is real. kind of surreal, right? but to fully appreciate the surrealness, get close. behold the ship of state propelled by the sails of leadership and accomplishment. tossed to the tides of the sea of division. i can't find that on my map. beleaguered by the beasts offette no sen terrorism and government incompetence and then in the background the rocky steps to progress. which apparently if you're not careful leads you off a cliff and into the squalls of hate. little scary and all illuminated by the rainbow arc of the moral universe. also watch out and you'll entangled in the reefs of grief all on this poster and not for nothing. the squal of justice with three arms instead of two.

it's kind of a lot, right? this is the place to really poke fun at it but i'll admit something. i kind of like it. it's kind of -- look. clearly an homage to the campaign posters of william jennings bryant. those are full of weird stuff so kudos to governor cuomo i guess for paying tribute to the political history. that's what i love. nothing wrong with nostalgia and i believe probably buy it. not 21st century version of it. hey, maybe that's just me. call me crazy or ishmael. we'll be right back. and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

a partner who makes sure every step is clear, trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy

can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

welcome back. the political junkie word stunned when new polls added at candidate to next week's iowa debate. we thought five, there you go. billionaire businessman steyer earned his spot after notching big numbers in early state polls but in that -- not named iowa and new hampshire. they came out just ahead of tonight's polling deadline to qualify. 12% in nevada. 15% in south carolina. much higher there than in either iowa or nevada. how did he notch them? check out the ad spending advantage he has in nevada and south carolina. steyer is light years ahead of the closest competitors focusing on iowa and new hampshire.

the dominance in nevada and south carolina boosted the numbers. look at this. $14 million in south carolina on tv ads for steyer! the next biggest democrat was buttigieg with with 1 million. same thing happening by the way in the national level, the race's other billionaire, former new york city mayor mike bloomberg, is dwarfing candidates when it comes to ad spending, funding his campaign out of his own deep pockets and that number is contributing to a steady climb up the national polls. joining me now are nbc colleagues covering the billionaire running for president. senior business correspondent ste stephanie ruhle and alex sites wald. let me start with the steyer end of things first, he has been a bit of a thorn in the side of some of these campaigns it bugs them how they have done this a little bit, just like bloomberg's spending has been a

thorn, kroyou know, in klobucha and some of the others. should we read anything more into this steyer inflation other than name id. >> the lukewarm take here is that money does matter in politics. this doesn't mean that he's bought himself the nomination, but it does mean that he's bought himself relevance. he was sort of a nonfactor, and was told he was going to be out of the debate. now he's in the debate. the steyer campaign, are fully aware when we get to south carolina and nevada, things are going to look very different because you have to go through iowa and new hampshire first of course. they're hoping for a bounce effect to do better in iowa and new hampshire there, and that will get at the question you're asking, is it just name id, running ads, those voters and caucus goers are very attuned. they have seen tom steyer up close. maybe they haven't been taking him seriously. maybe they now will start to. i think this is going to be the real test of how much money can really buy you, whether he can

actually start to be a serious player in those two states. >> it's not lost on me that, look, he's spending a lot of money in iowa and new hampshire and has not had the same impact. stephanie, let me ask a lirc different way about michael bloombe bloomberg, does the bloomberg campaign look at what steyer pulled off in iowa and nevada, and thinking maybe we shouldn't have skipped the earlier states. >> the bloomberg team has their national plan. they stuck to it. they're focused on they data analytics plan, going national all the way. six battle ground states they have staffed with 500 people. 800 total. everybody committed to being paid through the election, and don't forget bloomberg's digital operation, hawk fish, possibly the only digital operation with size and scale that can rival brad parscale and president trump's team. bloomberg is going all the way in their opinion.

>> sometimes i watch his ads, stephanie and it looks like a super pack that has a candidate's name attached to it because it is never about mike bloomberg. the ad always begins, whatever it is, something about trump, something about the issue itself, and then at the end is and mike bloomberg will be the guy to solve this problem, but you could easily see how they could cut the ad off, and all of a sudden it's nothing more than a democratic messaging ad. >> charles, you have nailed it. remember, mayor mike bloomberg said from the beginning, his number one goal is to get donald trump out of office. in august, he told us he thinks every person in the democratic field would make a better president than donald trump. about a few months ago, he said he wasn't sure any of them could beat him. he then entered the race. as of today, he has said publicly if the democratic primary voters do not choose mayor bloomberg, and trust me he would like them to choose him, if they don't, he is committed

to giving all of those resources to whomever the candidate is. exactly to your point, yep, you could take mike's face and name off the back of it. he's going to take that operation, and if it's joe biden, pete buttigieg, he's going to be offering that. >> what do the other campaigns think of this, klobuchar's campaign, biden's campaign, buttigieg in particular, you would assume in the top five we speak of, those three are probably a bit more acceptable to bloomberg perhaps than warren and sanders. >> well, they try not to think about him or either of these two candidates as much as possible. but when they have to, i think they used words we're probably not allowed to say on the air right now. i mean, what they say, and i think there's some truth to this, is that democratic voters don't want billionaires spending their money to win the nomination or to get close to winning the nomination, and they think it's unfair. they think that these candidates have bought themselves or steyer has bought himself a spot on the debate stage that he hasn't earned and this is, you know, after both of these guys have

spent millions of dollars to help elect democrats across the country, so they're not giving a lot of goodwill for that. they're not too concerned about it. bloomberg, i think, is a bit of a wild card, but steyer, maybe this will change their opinions but so far i haven't heard much concern from other campaigns. >> stephanie is bloomberg committed not to attack fellow democrats. >> it's too soon to tell. what he's saying today might change tomorrow thus far. he's saying he's not going to attack anyone. the argument that other democratic candidates are making, that democratic voters don't want you to do that, i don't know, show me the money. tom steyer just qualified for the debate last night, and mike bloomberg has himself in fifth place and he only entered weeks ago. money does seem to have results. >> by the way, does mike bloomberg expect to be participating in debates in march? does he want to or not? >> thus far he's not even trying. what happens down the road, we'll see. >> stephanie ruhle, alex sits

wall, thank you both, happy friday. enjoy whatever weekend you can get. we'll be right back. weekend yon get. we'll be right back. my age-related macular degeneration could lead to vision loss. so today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision... because he said a multi- vitamin alone may not be enough. and it's my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandson's beautiful face. only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. it's how i see my life. because it's my vision... preservision.

(whistling) [ suspens♪ ul music ]

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

well, that's all we have for tonight, we'll be back monday with more "meet the press daily" and sunday it's "meet the press" looking at the three i's, impeachment, iran, and iowa. among my guests, robert o'brien. we have a lot of ground to

cover on this busy friday night, all eyes right now on speaker pelosi, she has made news in no uncertain terms on the new action in the impeachment fight. we'll bring that to you. also later tonight, our friend "art of the deal" coauthor, and a special report on rudy giuliani and his trip to ukraine. i have footage you have probably not seen based on the way we found it. it is a strange story and it's our special report a little later in the hour. our top story right now, speaker pelosi making it official. she is now formally promising a major development here in what looks like an onramp to a trial in this impeachment fight. let me explain. she has released through a letter to colleagues today an announcement that she has now asked judiciary chair nadler to bring a resolution to the house floor next week appointing managers, those are like the prosecutors of donald trump in a senate trial, and to do