he's a functionally a monarch. he's functionally the most politically powerful president in american history. think about it. there's been a concerted and acknowledged to be a convincing effort to use the constitutional checks and balances to bring him to justice because of violations of what we believe to be the constitutional order, and he, as you say, if time stops, he has beaten that back. not because of the facts, but in spite of the facts. >> good morning and welcome to "a.m. joy" live this morning from des moines, iowa, where voters will cast the first votes of the 2020 presidential primary season on monday. while the impeachment saga continues to roll unmerrily

along in washington. after friday night's near party-line vote where senate republicans blocked any witnesses from testifying or new evidence from coming in, donald trump's trial that's not a trial is set to come to its foregone conclusion very soon. closing arguments are set for monday. senators will make speeches attempting to explain their votes to their constituents and to history on tuesday. then the final vote, which let's just be honest, amounts to jury null fiction after a rigged trial will be on wednesday. this is what has been so extraordinary and so instructive about the impeachment of donald trump, who will become not just the third president of the united states to be impeached and tried in the senate, but also the first president impeached in his first term. the first president impeached for violating the national security interests of his own country and the only person to be put on trial in the united states for anything who was ever allowed to coordinate with the jury and literally orchestrated

the barring of evidence and witnesses and laid out the conclusion of his own trial and the verdict himself. by the way, if you were put on trial, you certainly couldn't do that. but then again, you wouldn't have an ally like mitch mcconnell as the jury foreman, who would do anything to save you. and you wouldn't have a jury like the senate republicans, who actually admit that you did what you were charged with doing, but will acquit you anyway. and that is what these republican senators will go down in history for, for throwing out not just their oaths, but also common sense in refusing to convict and remove this president, even though they know he's guilty. and for freeing him to rig his own re-election. and senators, history will remember. history may remember tennessee senator lamar alexander for just one thing. forecasti casting the deciding

against calling witnesses in the senate trial and for saying in a statement explaining his decision that while the house managers proved their case and trump's strong arming of ukraine for dirt that could help him get re-elected was inappropriate, those actions do not rise to impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. history will remember marco rubio, who seemed to acknowledge that the president's actions were likely impeachable, but said it would not be in the nation's best interests to remove him from office. senator lisa murkowski will be remembered for denouncing her own colleagues, saying, quote, i have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the senate. i don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. it is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the congress has failed. madam senator, if it's been a failure, if the institution has failed, it's your failure, no?

these senators chose to put their head in the sand rather than hear more evidence against the president, even as new revelations come out every day. like former national security advisor john bolton's account of a meeting in may which trump ordered in which trump ordered bolton to help with his pressure campaign on ukraine, more than two months before trump's july phone call with ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky according to a draft of bolton's book, viewed by "the new york times." that trump's legal team may have been in on the ukraine scheme themselves. all of that has come out and more revelations will keep coming out, even after the jury nullification on wednesday. how will history treat mitch mcconnell, the republican senator majority leader, already in the books for trying to stop the country's first black

president, strip him of the right to put judges on the supreme court or any court and for using donald trump to pack the court with unqualified right-wingers and whose latest claim to infamiliy that he plan to rig the trial of the president of the united states. >> everything i do i'm coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. there is no chance the president is going to be removed from office. my hope is that there won't be a single republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment. >> joining me now is benjamin wittes, msnbc legal analyst and the author of "unmaking the presiden presidency. barbara mcquade and mayawiley. i'm just going to let everybody

go through, maya, i'll start with you. you teach law. what do we make of a trial without witnesses and without evidence and the argument -- what do you make of the republican argument that it was the grand jury portion where all the evidence and witnesses were so then the actual trial you don't need them? >> look, this is astounding. here's the thing. there is no trial without witnesses and evidence. in any trial, civil or criminal, if there is new relevant compelling evidence, judges generally say we've got to get the evidence. what they rule on is relevancy. of course there has to be an opportunity for lawyers to engage with that evidence before it's put before a jury, but that's usually accommodated as adam schiff said in the senate well yesterday, the day before yesterday. we can make this work. we can create the time so that it's fair to all sides.

the argument that this was somehow the house's fault goes back to something that senator alexander said that i thought went straight to why this impeachment trial is of the constitution, not of donald trump. and that's that he called article 2, the obstruction article, frivolous. well, if it's frivolous, what you're really saying is we're not going to hear any new evidence because there's no new evidence to hear, not because you, house, didn't force a long protracted legal process to get it. you can make a legal argument, a constitutional argument about it, but the point is the senate as the trier, the part of government that has to make the decision, if it's actually saying we have relevant evidence, we don't want to hear, then all it's really saying is it's not going to be a real trial. one last point here, joy, that i think is so important.

when a senator lamar alexander or marco rubio or senator portman says it's wrong, but it's not impeachable, how are they assessing whether it's impeachable when they just haven't heard everything about what happened? because the issue of whether it's wrong but not impeachable should go to how badly was donald trump behaving, how much was he corrupting the institutions of government, who was he utilizing and how much did he understand? not because you need motive for a criminal trial but because it is fair to say we need to assess that the first national security trial in this nation as you pointed out means we have to grapple with what is impeachable when our national security is at stake. and what they took away from the american public was an honest debate about what protects us, what protects our constitution and what donald trump actually did.

>> to that very point, even john kelly, you know john kelly has been a bad guy in a lot of instances in the trump administration. you know, his overseeing. original muslim ban, his poor treatment, shabby treatment of an african-american woman congressman from florida after she just tried to defend the wife of a fallen soldier, so he's not been the greatest. but even he said a trial without witnesses is a job only half done. he said in an interview in my view the republicans have kind of left themselves open to a lot of criticism. let me play adam schiff, who's been brilliant in his presentations in this trial, describing what we just saw over the last few weeks. >> a trial without witnesses is only half a trial. well, i have to say i can't agree. a trial without witnesses is no trial at all. you either have a trial or you don't. and if you're going to have a

real trial, you need to hear from the people who have firsthand information. now, we presented some of them to you. but you know as well as we there are others that you should hear from. >> barbara mcquade, i assume that you've gone through the grand jury processes and brought people to trial as a prosecutor. have you ever after the grand jury process then had a trial where you were not allowed to call any witnesses or present any evidence and went straight from your opening arguments to the jury? >> no, of course not. that would be an absolute farce because the arguments are not the evidence. the evidence is the testimony of the witnesses and the documents that you show to the jury. from those things the jury must make its decision. the idea that this trial was only arguments of lawyers demonstrates just how absurd it is. and i think it all ends on the desk of mitch mcconnell. i think history will remember him as someone who abused the levers of power. just as we refer to a signature

as your john hancock and we refer to gerrymandering named after albert jerry. i think mcconnell will mean rig a system to get the outcome you want because that's what happened here. one thing that happened yesterday which was a little subtle, but when closing the day and planning the week, one of the things mitch mcconnell did was to include in the motion to close the record. and that means no more evidence is going to come in. so even if john bolton were to give some blockbuster interview this weekend where he disclosed what's in his book, that can't be used in the record. mitch mcconnell knows how the process works and he engineers it to get the outcome that he desires, i think to the detriment to our country. i think that's how history books will remember this moment and mitch mcconnell. >> he was going to be remembered for stealing a supreme court seat and this might supersede it. to stay with you just a moment, barbara, one of the jurors in this trial, marco rubio, who had been humiliated by donald trump but is now a sycophant, he said

even if everything is semd as true, number one, removing the president is not the last resort. we have an election in november that's far better. what scheme could vladimir putin come up with that could divide us more than removal would. other than rigging the election again and making sure donald trump is guaranteed to come back in? have you ever had a jury come out and say after a trial, yeah, the prosecution proved that he was guilty. barbara mccade gdid a great job and i knew he was guilty but i thought it was too divisive to convict him of bank robbery. we should just let the customers decide. >> no. one of the ways that impeachment is different from a tradition a.m. trial is that the senate sits both as jury and judge so you're absolutely right, joy. a jury is instructed to follow the law, hear the elements of the offense and if you finding they were met, then you must convict. one of the things the senate is allowed to do here is then assess just how bad is this, and is this sufficient to rise to the level of removing the

president from office. so i'm with marco rubio to that point, that he's at least being honest that the evidence proves the case, which i think is better than many others who are denying that this even happened. but then where he really turns it on his head is to say even though i believe that the president solicited a smear campaign against his rivals and even though i believe that he withheld military aid and put u.s. national security interests at risk, eh, i don't think that's worthy of removal from office. that is an astonishing thing to say and to conclude. >> especially since rigging the election is what he did and so expecting there to be a free and fair election now that he's free to do it again but with multiple countries, he can go to china, saudi arabia, and rig the election again, that makes no absolute sense. let me go to ben wittes or what was probably the most disturbing line that i heard as a layperson listening to it and it was alan dershowitz. i'm going to play it for the audience and then read you a little bit of what "the national review" said about it.

here it is and i'm going to come to you, ben, on that. >> every public official that i know believes that his election is in the public interest. and mostly you're right. you're election is in the public interest. and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> "the national review" quote from a book called "the case against impeaching donald trump" says assume dershowitz writes that putin decides to retake america the way he retook crimea. assume further that a president allows him to do it because he believed that russia has a legitimate claim to its original territory. that would be terrible, but would it be impeachable? not under the text of the constitution. that is what -- that is the way alan dershowitz thinks. this is monarchism as far as i

can tell. that's what john meacham has said happened, we essentially have a monarch. ben wittes, your thoughts. >> so dershowitz' argument is quite authoritarian in character and i thought it was notable that even the president's defense team actually tried to walk it back a little bit later in the argument, although the fall-back position was barely distinguishable. look, a couple things. the first, you all keep saying that the senators will have to answer to history. i agree with that, but there's a more immediate group that the senators have to answer for -- to and that's their voters. at least some of them are up for re-election in the fall. and, you know, there is no remedy against what they did other than electoral punishment. i think people who live in the

states that these senators are on the ballot in need to think about whether they feel okay about senators who proudly said it's time to proceed to a fateful decision on a national security matter with ignorance. because that's actually what they did. what they did was to say we have a really important decision on our plates. we have a lot of relevant information. let's not hear it. let's not hear from people, including the president's own national security advisor who say they have relevant material for us to consider. let's not -- let's not see the documents that bear on the allegations here. let's simply imagine what we prefer the truth to be and then define it as inadequate to justify an impeachment and

removal. and people need to ask the question, is that the way they want their senators to behave? do we want to live in an environment in which the self-described world's greatest deliberative body chooses to deliberate if that's a word that can be reasonably attached to this without the relevant information. and i think to pose that question starkly is also to answer it. and the cory gardners and thom tillises and mitch mcconnells and the others who are on the ballot this fall really should have to answer that question, why would you -- why would you take a vote on a crucial national security matter without knowing what you're talking about? >> yeah, absolutely. well, they did say that elections are the remedy for imagined wrongdoing.

if their voters think that they have done wrong, they have a way to give them what they want. lamar alexander, he's not going to be doing anything else legislatively so he's just going to be known for this. benjamin wittes, barbara mcquade, maya wiley, thank you very much. up next, more on the death of the republican party. he repui . ♪all strength, we ain't stoppin' believe me♪ ♪go straight till the morning look like we♪ ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪

♪all strength, no sweat break out the butter loif you've been dreaming aboutr tender wild-caught lobster, dig in to butter-poached,

fire-roasted and shrimp & lobster linguini. see? dreams do come true. or if you like a taste of new england without leaving home, try lobster, sautéed with crab, jumbo shrimp and more, or maybe you'd like to experience the ultimate surf and the ultimate turf... with so many lobster dishes, there's something for every lobster fan so hurry in and let's lobsterfest. or get pick up or delivery at redlobster.com

general secretary gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the soviet union and eastern europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. mr. gorbachev, open this gate. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> the republican party of the 1980s is long gone. now may have a skosh less dignity. really what we saw this week was the death of the republican party as anything other than the cult of donald trump. joining me now is david jolly, former republican congressman who is no longer affiliated with the party. and michael steele, former rnc chairman who's hanging on as a republican as long as he can. i'm sorry, i feel bad for you, man. here is the vote on no witnesses. senator lamar alexander, who tried to make it seem like this high-minded decision with this lengthy tweet storm explaining

why no witnesses. lisa murkowski, no. senator susan collins, yes. because she's really in trouble for her re-election. senator mitt romney yes. just as former party chair, michael steele, what were the calculations that these four made, and why were they so different from one another other than lamar alexander, who's out of there? >> yeah. and i think when you're looking at the no votes, it's -- it's really kind of being beaten back into the proverbial corner by mcconnell. it shows his very good ability to whip his vote in such a way that it holds. it genuinely holds. and the unfortunate part, though, was the signal he sent out a couple -- a day or so before the vote when he said, oh, i don't have the votes and that was a call to the hinterlands of republicans across the country who started going after -- going after these

folks and putting pressure on them from that side of it. the folks -- the yes votes, romney is his own person, he's his own player. no one can touch him. that's -- a lot of people don't understand why, but that's just the way he's built his stature right now. and as you noted, susan collins is in a tough race. and so they gave her the room to make that vote. my bet is next week on the conviction, they all line up no. >> oh, yeah. 100%. and here's the risk of that. i'm going to stay with you just a moment, mr. chairman. rahm emanuel wrote an op-ed. rahm emanuel was also the cocker tekt of the 2006 takeover that made nancy pelosi the speaker the first time. he was one of the real architects of that. he wrote a vote to acquit will force every senator to own trump's 'em boldened rhetoric of being exonerated. they all have to defend trump

when the next embarrassing thing hits the air waves or when john bolton's book comes out or when internal memos about the drug deal come out. republican senators will become full-time kpaun ratexoneraters. here's lev parnas on what he would have said. do we have it? okay. we don't have it yet. okay, we're going to hold off on that. lev parnas was going to testify to the effort that he and a handful of republican operatives engaged in over a period of months to remove ambassador marie yovanovitch and gather dirt on joe and hunter biden. if he were to testify those including roles super pac america first, donald trump, vice president pence, energy secretary rick perry, secretary of state mike pompeo, attorney general bill barr, lindsey graham, congressman devin nunes, his staffer, devon harvey, journalist john solomon, attorneys joe digenova and

victoria toensing. he's going to throw everybody under the bus. michael steele is rahm emanuel right that they are now at risk in the states that donald trump isn't guaranteed to win? >> i believe they are. i believe rahm is right and i believe that those individuals have risked a great deal going into the fall campaign. yeah, you'll get through your primary. trump won't speak ill of you. he won't back your opponent, so you're going to have the smooth run to get to your renomination. but then you have to face the rest of your congressional district, the rest of your state if you're a u.s. senator, that's going to have some real serious questions about the way -- the degree to which you took responsibility in the moment and then failed to hold up your ending of the bargain with the american people and look at the witnesses that were coming forth. so when these narratives start to drop, as you noted, joy, guess what, you're going to be in front of a bank of microphones explaining, okay, so

with this new revelation, what do you have to say? and that just eats and eats at their fall opportunity with the voters that they're going to need to hold on to their seats. >> let's go to the senator that's relevant to where i am today. here's joni ernst and her decision was to use this moment in history, this historic moment forrers as a united states senator to do the work that donald trump wanted ukraine to do and couldn't get them to do, which is go after the bidens. here she is. >> iowa caucuses are this next monday evening, and i'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the iowa caucus voters, those democratic caucus goers. will they be supporting president -- vice president biden at this point? >> you know, david jolly, you used to be a republican member of congress. how much do members think about

history and the sort of dignity of their job versus the immediate need to be a partisan hack basically? >> far less than i would have hoped. that was one of my great disappointments in serving in the house was seeing kind of the kevin mccarthy benghazi strategies be more important than even the fact finding or perhaps the priorities of the nation at the time. look, when you see those moments from joni ernst and others, people are rightfully angry. i think it's good we get to see that. we see exactly who they are, exactly what their motivations are so the public is informed. one of the areas where republicans don't realize their narrative is so off base is even when lamar alexander says wrong but not impeachable, when rubio says impeachable, but we shouldn't do it because it's not in the national interests, whatever that convoluted argument is, take the lamar alexander thing. okay, senator, if it's wrong but not impeachable, then what is

it? and that's the element that every republican is missing in their message, which is if you have made a determination on right and wrong, which every american understands, how do you address the wrong? and what they're saying is we're not going to address the wrong. we're going to look the other way. or if i'm joni ernst, i'm going to flip this around and make it more wrong by targeting a political opponent of the president. >> yeah, i'm not going to play it because we're short on time. to stay with you for a minute, david, rick scott who used to be known for incredibly huge medicare fraud by the company that he was the head of and said he didn't know anything about, now he's known for doing a hostage video, a sort of snarky hostage video, sort of almost mocking this grave moment of impeachment. is that going to fly in a state like florida? >> no. here's the disgrace, joy. rick scott represents the third largest state in the nation, 20 million plus people. he doesn't represent donald trump and only the republican party. when you get elected to office, are you going to give voice to

only the people that voted for you or give voice to the entire constituency you've been entrusted to represent. rick scott was entrusted to represent the entire state of florida, not just the republican party. he showed his cards there. he deserves to lose. i don't know if he's going to run for president or not but he shouldn't be re-elected to the united states senate from the state of florida. a disgraceful moment from rick scott. >> hear hear. >> a run for president or run for king. michael steele, is your party now a monarchist party? because it does appear if you look at what smart historians are saying, what the republican party has essentially said is that donald trump is a king. he is a monarch. he cannot be checked by the senate. no one can check him. he can do anything he wants as long as he thinks his election and his remaining in power is in the national interests. that is a king. is your party that you used to be the chairman of a monarchist party now? >> that's a fancy word so let's break it down to street level. it's a trump party, it's a trumpian party. it is dipping into its

nationalist roots. and they're all court sort of congealing together that a lot of these folks don't see any wrong donald trump can do. they hue to him. as i noted in a conversation we had earlier, what's wrong? what is it about him that makes them want for him to like them and talk about them so much? and that's because it's the cultive personality and he is that personality. >> is it a cult? i mean it's been described like that. is it a cult? >> it acts like one. that's the depressing part. it doesn't act like a party. we saw that play out this week, where the facts are right there, the opportunity to show itself differently was there and they passed. >> yeah. a strange world we live in. david jolly, michael steele. i got them $473 words. michael steele is here to break it all down. coming up, mike bloomberg

buys his way onto the debate stage. stay with us. st ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

it's a lifelong adventure finding all of these new connections all the time. greater details. richer stories. and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com.

ncan it one up spaghetti night? cleaning power of liquid. it sure can. really? can it one up breakfast in bed? yeah, for sure. thanks, boys. what about that? uhh, yep! it can? yeah, even that! i would very much like to see that. me too. introducing new tide power pods. one up the toughest stains with 50% more cleaning power than liquid detergent. any further questions? uh uh! nope! one up the power of liquid with new tide power pods.

coming up tomorrow morning

on "a.m. joy" what it is like to be a voter of color in iowa. msnbc's own trymaine lee sat down with a group of iowa voters to talk about their concerns, their community and their views on the political state of the nation. >> i believe that, a, the color of the party right now represents the temperature of our country, okay? so i also believe that whoever is elected should be able to pick the best person for the job, whether it's a brown or black person or not. i think that as black people, there are those that would expect us to want, desire or demand somebody of color to have that position as the vice president. i don't have that demand. >> more on this tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you don't want to miss it.

and some surprising responses. up next, the democratic party changes the rules. you're watching "a.m. joy" live from iowa. do y e concerns about m me oss ? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

americans come to lendingtree.com to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending

tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c,

or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. i want to thank president bush for supporting new york city. the president deserves our support. we are here to support him.

and i am here to support him. >> a lot can happen in 16 years. that same man is now running for the democratic nomination for president. mike bloomberg's candidacy seemed like a long shot when he entered in november, but he's already shooting up in the polls as he spends hundreds of millions of his own money on advertising. now he could be on the dem debate stage. on friday the dnc announced it has changed its rules for furtd primary debates. candidates will no longer be required to have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals in order to make it to the stage. it's a boon to bloomberg who is self-funding his campaign and not accepting donations. joining me now is congressman debra holland who is a surrogate for elizabeth warren and has been out and about doing rallies here in iowa. great to have you on the show. >> thank you, joy. >> the candidate you're supporting for president,

elizabeth warren, tweeted the following. the dnc didn't change its rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. they shouldn't change the rules to let a billionaire on. billionaires shouldn't be allowed to play by different rules on the debate stage in our democracy or in our government. just an fyi, this particular billionaire, michael bloomberg, wrote an $800,000 check, just one check to the democratic grassroots victory fund, the joint fund-raising committee for the dnc, the $800,000 was redistributed to 44 states so he's given a lot of money. do you think this is straight-up favoritism? >> well, look, i'm sure there's some candidates right now who are feeling cheated about the system because they weren't able to meet the threshold and weren't able to get on the debate stage. we've heard complaints that it's the people of color, the candidates of color who have been essentially locked out of that system. so sure, it looks like that. however, i think that if he is

on the debate stage against my candidate, elizabeth warren, that she'll have a chance to drill down and find out where he really stands and if he stands for working people. >> i guess you're right. the upside for senator warren is a direct chance, a direct opportunity to debate two billionaires if steyer makes it. >> absolutely, yes. >> so what is the argument that senator warren would make to people who are saying trump is a menace, the republican party has said he's essentially a king. he can do whatever he wants. so in that state we're really afraid and nervous. taking a chance on a candidate who's saying a wealth tax and medicare for all and who's a woman, it's a lot for a lot of people. what do you say to them? >> first of all, elizabeth warren has been a champion for working families, working people. she is bringing that to the national stage, she is ready to win and ready to fight for every single one of us. the issues that -- the policies and issues that she's fighting for, they're what our country

needs. too many people are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills. families can't afford to buy insulin for their sick children. these are issues that affect all of us, not just democrats, not just progressives, but republicans, democrats, independents, people all over the country will benefit from the fight that she is bringing to this campaign. so i stand with her unequivocally. i think she has an excellent chance of winning the caucuses on monday. i am here in the state as well as thousands of other people knocking on doors, canvassing, making phone calls for elizabeth warren and we'll do the best we can to make sure that she's there. >> i was just in upstate new york and there were members of an indigenous community say to me that they liked elizabeth warren but they want to make sure that she's done the work with indigenous communities to make sure that's not an issue. we know donald trump is going to ha rang her about it if she's the nominee. you represent those communities

as well as representing those constituents. has she done that work on the grounding? >> absolutely. right now her and i are working on a bill called the honoring promises to native nation act. you might know that the federal government has a trust responsibility to tribes. we're sitting on indian land right now. every inch of this country was at one time indian land, it's now the united states of america. elizabeth warren understands that history. she wants to make sure that the federal government is living up to its trust responsibility. the bill, the legislation that we're working on will do just that. look, her policies, the universal child care, that will benefit indian tribes and native communities as much as it will, you know, folks living in downtown albuquerque in my district. so we -- i think that the policies that she has, they reach across communities, right? they will benefit every person

in this country. and look, the important thing to remember about elizabeth warren is that with respect to indian tribes is that she understands the history and she has been an ally of ours for a very long time. and so i am -- i believe that she is the best person for our communities. >> she's picked some great people as surrogates, and you're a tremendous ally. i'm sure she's glad to have you on the team. congresswoman, thank you very much. coming up next in our next hour of "a.m. joy" -- the academic whose new book "arguing with zombies" is not about the walking dead. ♪won't wait, we're taking everything we wanted we can do it♪

♪all strength, no sweat when people ask me what makes verizon 5g different i talk about firefighters. for hundreds of years they've had to do their jobs in blinding smoke. but verizon 5g ultra wideband is built to transmit real-world data so fast, it could power technology that lets them see through smoke. that's a difference that can save lives. that's a difference that will change everything.

iowa where it's 2016 all over again. in fact, apparently it's always going to be 2016. stay with us. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get.

at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain.

before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. aaaah! nooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. i receivelize travel rewards. going new places! going out for a bite! going anytime. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.

oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.

i don't remember if you guys remember last week when someone by the name of hillary clinton said that nobody -- we're not going to boo. we're not going to boo. we're classy here. >> no, i'll boo. boo. >> as you all know, i can't be quiet. no we're going to boo. that's all right. the haters will shut up on monday when we win. >> there we go.

>> good morning, and welcome back to "a.m. joy." just days before the iowa caucuses, the democratic party is having a bit of a problem. the democratic race for 2020 exploded overnight and the spark that lit the fuse was 2016, the never ending race. rashida talib is facing a backlash after encouraging the audience to boo the name of hillary clinton during a sanders' campaign event in iowa. talib was being asked about a forthcoming documentary, in which clinton said of sanders, and i will quote, nobody likes him. reopening the wounds of 2016. in a new interview friday with the podcast your primary play list, clinton went further and criticized sanders and his campaign for not doing enough to unite the democratic party after he lost the primary race in 2016. >> i won by 4 million votes.

i won overwhelmingly in delegates. there was no question about who was going to be the nominee. but unfortunately, you know, his campaign and his principal supporters were just very difficult and really constantly not just attacking me but my supporters. we get to the convention, they're booing michelle obama, john lewis. it was very distressing. >> joining me now is the host of that interview, emily susman, jonathan kaypart, ej dejohn, and jennif jennifer palmieri. thank you all for being here. let me go to you emily on this first. i want to play one more little clip of it. this is talking about whether or

not -- whether or not bernie sanders could unify the party now, because that clip we played before was about whether or not he did enough to try to unify the party in 2016. here's another clip. >> senator sanders has a very dedicated base of support. whether he's the nominee, whether he's not the nominee he has a big hand, a lot of influence. so what do you think he can do whether he's the nominee or not nominee to unify people against trump? >> he can do it, for one. that's not our experience from 2016. and that was the point i was making. >> emily, it feels like 2016 really is the never ending story. it's the nightmare we can't wake up from, you wake up and it's ground hog day over and over again. why did you get the sense hillary clinton was willing to be this open and blunt knowing the stakes now in needing to

unify the party? what did you get the sense about why she wanted to be open? >> she was open. you can tell by the questions i was asking, we were trying to get to the core of what voters were weighing above everything else, which is how do you defeat donald trump? he we hear it in every state, across every demographic. what's unusual about this year is people are willing to set aside what may be their own preferences around policy, personality and prioritizing a candidate they think can unify others and bring others along. so the question of who will have a broad base of appeal is relevant, on top of everyone's minds. even though the iowa voters have the responsibility of voting first and setting the tone, they're thinking about it too. you hear it from iowa voters everywhere. it is an important question. why i felt it was poornt question to pose to the secretary because she was -- we

spoke about both races where she was in a competitive primary in 2016 and in 2008 and how exactly both of those instances played out. how she had a conversation with when she wasn't the nominee with barack obama, when she was the nominee with bernie sanders, how she had that conversation. bernie sanders is or is not going to be the nominee but he will have a significant roll in this race no matter who it is. so he does have a responsibility in that sense. >> and i want to come to you, jennifer, on that, but before i do that i want to read what rashida talib has said, she put out statement. she said in this instance i allowed my disappointment with secretary clinton's statements about senator sanders get the best of me. i will continue to strive to come from a place of love and not react.

this is about building a just and equitable future for my boys. i think it's important to read that she did walk back that booing. but there's a sense not only is 2016 a never ending thing but this split in the party, i hate democrats in disarray as a meme in the media but they are. they have two wings, they have a moderate and a progressive wing that tends to be younger and about radical change in america, tends to have people of color -- well, there are people of color in both camps. this isn't the first time they've been at war, right? in 2008 that was a nasty primary at times, quite a few harsh things said. in the end i wrote about this in the worst book, there was a suing for peace immediately after, and even then 10 or 11% of hillary clinton's voters

voted for john mccain rather than barack obama. and some said some horrible ugly, racial things. so this isn't the first time in terms of a split. but why is this? >> we'll find out in milwaukee. what i like about the democratic party, we have big fights internally and they -- the other party, we saw what happened yesterday. >> they haven't split. >> that's what happens when you don't have the debates within your party is you end up with donald trump as your no, ma'min. so i think that's fine. we talk about never waking up from the nightmare that's 2016. i think people are still trying to process that. and i see that in iowa. i've been here for a week and voters are all over the place because they think they're trying to get their orientation about how do we think about the selection, and there is an -- and alongside that that's like a

different question who can win. alongside that there's the progressive versus sort of moderate battle. but what i saw in '16 was -- you know, i lived through '08 and '16 and '16 was a different thing. part of the problem for clinton was we had every day 17 people attacking her, two democrats and 15 republicans. and that built up this -- so when you got to the general election, there were a lot of senator sanders supporters that were never going to come her way. and there were people in the senator's campaign that tried to push them her way and they were never going to do it. that's why it's important that the candidates this time around try to limit that kind of engagement, because it is really corrosive. and when donald trump and democrats are making the same argument against another democratic candidate, that sticks and it hurts.

>> you had in 2016 a core of sanders supporters who to this day no matter how you show them the math believe that bernie sanders would be the nominee except super delegates. >> yeah, now he has a chance to prove that. i think it's good she put that statement out because that's what they need to do. he is running for president, running to unite the party and they have to do that. i talked to his campaign, i know they are concerned about this. i know they want to be seen as an open and welcoming campaign, but they -- they -- you know, they got to prove that. and their supporters need to. >> jonathan, i remember 2008 enough to remember that there were, you know, vehement supporters of senator clinton and people called obama bros, believe it or not, they were saying the camps were nasty to each other and the camps exacerbated this sense of warfare between camp obama and

camp clinton. it was much more intense in 2016, to be blunt. and some of the people engaged in some of that, some of the people who were sort of attack dogs for senator sanders and led an online push to just if you weren't with him you were like the devil, right, some of those people are now on staff at the sanders campaign. some of those people were hired. and a lot of -- particularly those of us who were journalists of color, the punishment for not saying that sanders was the greatest candidate ever was vehement and you had to block a lot of people. some of those people are on staff. how would you foresee senator sanders being able to unite the party if he were to become the nominee? how would he do that? >> he would do it by not just being seen as trying to unite the party but by actually doing it. by actually stepping out there and saying the words that the

party, and particularly his supporters, need to hear. that this kind of language, this kind of behavior, harassment and bullying on twitter and social media, is not what he's about, not what his campaign is about, it's not what the party should be about. it certainly shouldn't be what the campaign is about. because overall, whether you're supporting bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, tom steyer, mike bloomberg, or anyone, the number one goal is to get trump out of the white house. i think at some point, senator sanders has to make a statement along the lines of what congresswoman talib did. i'm glad she did that. his surrogates and supporters aren't the only ones having to step out and say, my bad, we have a larger mission here. the candidate has to say that. if he's going to wield so much

influence and power at the democratic convention as the nominee or someone with enough delegates to wield that power, then at some point he needs to step out front and talk about what kind of leader he's going to be, not just for the party but for the country. >> there's a lot of mechanics that go into it. mechanically bernie sanders has never been a democrat. so some of the mechanics running for president as a democrat means you have to encourage your supporters to vote as democrats. not just independents but democrats. it would require to unify the party a nod to a party that he's also been running against his whole career, he's not in either of the parties. i wonder mechanically how would a candidate who's built his reputation on being outside the democratic party system become the insider, the nominee of one

of the two political parties. >> bernie is a member of the insider as a member of the democratic caucus in the senate. you know the whole fight we're talking about is why i wrote "code red," the book begins with the sentence will progressive and moderates feud while the country burns. i want to take you back to the great opener you had in the show about what happened in the senate yesterday where a group of so called moderate republicans decided to say donald trump, in a second term, you can do anything you want. and, you know, i argue in the book if you look at the differences between sanders democrats or klobuchar democrats, the most moderate or most progressive democrats, the differences between those camps are vanishingly small compared to the differences between all of them in both donald trump and a radicalized republican party.

i was in iowa this week and one of the most striking things to me is all these voters were undecided not because they have little knowledge, but because they have a lot of knowledge, and they are desperately worried about winning this election. and they want to find the candidate who can both restore some old values but also transform the country. and i think the party's politicians have to be as serious about this as the party's voters are. and these kind of fights are not going to help defeat donald trump. >> you know, very true. as you said, i think it's a good sub title, they'll fight all the way to losing. emily you came from the world of the center for progress, so you come from the big thinking about this. speaking with hillary clinton, did you get the sense in her view or your view looking at it, is this an election about

fundamental change or about safety, protecting the country from the monarchy of donald trump? >> it's a great question. i think it is about fundamental change, but it's how you view that question of fundamental change. so sanders is obviously pitching a structural change, a wholistic structural change when you go look at moderate candidates like biden or buttigieg, they're looking at a change backwards, trying to figure out what their specific steps are to get there. i think that's been lost in their message. i think warren was very good at outlining it for a long period of time as her policy platforms were rolling out. it does feel people want -- they just want to turn the page and figure out the best way to do

it, they can't figure out if the best way is burn it down or go back to norms they understand and move forward from there. >> that's totally right. i got the same thing in iowa. >> go into that, ej, because that is the question. is the solution to trump to burn it down and rebuild a brand new health care system, have a woman be president or is it to go down the klobuchar, pete buttigieg, biden round of having a holding pattern? do you get a sense, from talking to people, of which thing -- or do they go with the billionaire who can beat trump with his money? >> i think a lot of people in the party, grass roots voters think this restoration transformation argument is a bit of a false choice. because obviously everybody wants to restore certain basic values that trump is trampling

on. but there are also a lot of people, at the very same time who say restoring those values is going to require change. it's going to require change to get rid of some of the conditions that led to donald trump in the first place. and it's because people hold these two things together at the same time that they're having difficulty deciding among these candidates where the emphasis of one set is a little different than the emphasis of the other set. i've been thinking about the word restoration. what people really are looking for is to restore progress. which itself is about making fundamental change over time. and for goodness sake, whether you did single payer or a public option, you would end up covering all americans and that's the bottom line everybody ought to be talking about. >> and jonathan, we're in the state that's almost entirely white state but -- and this is

where the decision sort of starts but a lot of the fight is over who can move on from here and attract the diverse obama coalition that brought in young voters that weren't that interested in politics before. you have this week an in depth piece that came out that talked about amy klobuchar's record as a prosecutor. she may now see what it's like to be kamala harris and face questions about criminal justice that are uncomfortable that pete buttigieg is struggling with, dealing with how to talk to african-americans and non-white voters. so there's a question of not just who can be a restorative candidate but a broad based candidate, is anybody winning that? i'll show you the polling that shows joe biden, bernie sanders just behind him and that polling in iowa as you're talking. >> look, when it comes to senator klobuchar, i wrote about this right after she did her

blizzard announcement. where she had an opening to talk to african-americans beyond the talking point of i believe in criminal justice and i'm going to be a president who, you know, does something about it. philando castile was killed by police in a suburb of st. paul, minnesota next door to where she was a prosecutor, perfect opportunity for her to say his name and send a single to fe african-americans that she sees them and hears them and she didn't do it. my thinking about her is what happens after iowa. no matter who wins iowa, if it's not joe biden, no matter who wins new hampshire if it's not joe biden, they're going to hit the south carolina wall.

i think if black voters in south carolina and three days later in the super tuesday states will have their opportunity to have their voices heard and felt. and i think that, you know, we have to be -- it's the obama coalition that when i hear obama coalition, i'm not just thinking of young voters i'm thinking of older voters and older african-american voters, one they vote, and two, they are very concerned about what's going to happen to this country. they lived through the '50s and the '60s and thought things had gotten reasonably better and now to see it burning down before their eyes, they want someone who can get trump out of office. >> and this is a rare election, jennifer, where it is not '08. it is not clear that the person who wins this state, iowa, is then going to be rocketed toward south carolina. because i totally agree with

jonathan. i can see different people winning all the first three or bernie sanders doing well here, doing really well in new hampshire and then when it gets to south carolina, older black voters will still say biden and there won't be a sling forward for a buttigieg or biden -- or bernie. >> i'm just not sure that south carolina is going to matter the way -- south carolina is on saturday and super tuesday is on tuesday, it's three days. i think -- >> but super tuesday is full of southern states, also biden states. >> the funny thing about being in iowa, south carolina matters because iowa wants to know you can do well in south carolina so they're taking that into account. i think that in the end we're going to -- the south carolina results are not going to stick with us for very long because super tuesday is so soon, but it's indicative for us what's going to happen super tuesday.

>> right. >> i think if sanders wins in iowa, i believe he'll win in new hampshire and then, you know, that is a very difficult dynamic to stop because i have been on the other -- i've been on the winning end of that and the losing end of that. it's two states, but when somebody wins both of them, then it's -- it's a big burst of momentum. if biden wins here, then i think we're in a very different situation. >> it's interesting because it's not clear when bloomberg would start winning but he has a lot to pick up from the table with money. i would say let's say sanders wins here, remember in '08, barack obama won here and then had the stutter, as you well know, in new hampshire, and then he gave that speech, yes, we can. sometimes you can spin a loss that makes you win. >> i can't emphasize enough how undecided iowa still is. >> the whole country. >> really any one of those top

four or five candidates can win here. >> i've been talking to people who are like i'm deciding between warren and bloomberg. it doesn't make sense. great panel thank you guys very much. coming up, my next guest tell us how to argue with zom e zombi zombies. stay with us. zombies. stay with us if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, now might not be the best time to ask yourself, 'are my bones strong?' life is full of make or break moments.

that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva. serious allergic reactions like low blood pressure, trouble breathing, throat tightness, face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen. or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping, skipping or delaying prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones. what's going on? oh, darn! let me help. here we go. lift and push and push! there... it's up there. oh, boy.

hey joshie... wrinkles send the wrong message. help prevent them before they start with new downy wrinkleguard. hey! bud. hey, pop pop! so you won't get caught with wrinkles again. itpatrick mahomes and then. high powered chief's offense. touchdown! face the 49ers suffocating defense. unbelievable! on the world's biggest stage. the only place to watch it all is on fox and the fox sports app. superbowl 54. february 2nd. xfinity customers, to watch in 4k this sunday say "4k" into your x1 voice remote.

the unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years.

more americans, nearly 160 million are employed than ever before. the african-american unemployment, the hispanic unemployment, asian unemployment has the lowest rate ever recorded. the if all of that is solely, in their words were for his personal and political gain and not in the best interest of the american people, then i say god bless him, keep doing it. keep doing it. keep doing it. >> donald trump's impeachment, impeachment defense team, that is correct. wants you to believe that a president cannot be impeached if the economy is booming. even if that were somehow true, the economy is showing signs of weakness. the u.s. economy grew by only 2.1% in the fourth quarter making 2019 the slowest year for growth in three years.

trump wants the economy -- well, his investigation of the economy to be a big issue in the 2020 campaign, and that's why my next guest comes in. joining me is paul krugman. author of "arguing with zombies". great title. thanks for being here. >> hi, there. >> let's set aside the strange argument that the economy has something to do with impeachment. is it the best? not even close, trump's gdp growth is slower than jimmy carter's, that's what joe scarborough said. is he right? or is it trump right? >> scarborough is closer. we were further from full employment than we realized. trump's policies have increased the deficit by about

$300 billion a year. so that's a huge fiscal stimulus. which does give the economy, at least for several years, a boost. just imagine what the obama economy would have looked like if republicans had allowed him to spend $300 billion a year on infrastructure. in a way the amazing thing is with that deficit spending we're not seeing something better than what we're seeing. >> i was just in upstate new york, shout out to rochester institute of technology and someone smart there said to me, first of all, knew the phrase the economy is the greatest in u.s. history, that phrase had sunk in with this person and said how do you run against the greatest economy in history? if psychologically people feel the economy is great, how does one make the argument, low unemployment, high stock market is not the greatest economy

ever? >> it's going to matter. if we were in a recession, then donald trump would be toast. it's going to matter that the economy is doing well. it's infuriating because the reason we're getting decent economic numbers is because republicans, after saying deficits, oh, scary, we must cut spending, must reduce the government debt as long as a democrat was in the white house, said free-for-all, let's borrow hundreds of millions of dollars as soon as they had one of their own in the white house, and that's a bad precedent, aside from everything else that we're seeing. but i talk to political scientists, they don't think this kind of economic performance is good enough to be decisive to ensure that this guy is going to be returned to office. >> and people have four roommates and have to drive uber on the side. >> that's right. >> people aren't doing all right. income inequality is insane. let me read from your latest

column, democrats should unify behind whoever gets the nomination. even if you find sanders too radical, his actual policies would be far more tempered. any sanders enthusiast tempted to become a bernie or bust type should realize even centrist democrats are pretty progressive and there's a gap between them and the gop. the people who are afraid a sanders nomination, i was in tennessee and upstate new york the last few days and i had people say to me, bernie would lose 30 states, people aren't voting for a socialist. how do you argue back? >> i don't know about electability. i worry that sanders could come across as too radical. he would be in many ways -- if he hasn't received anything like the grilling over his policies that elizabeth warren, the other big progressive in the race has

received. so we don't know how he would hold up under the vetting that in a lot of ways he hasn't received yet. but it doesn't matter. democrats should back him if he's the nominee, regardless. i just -- there is a question about that. and the other -- i think the other question, though, is do you think that, you know, not like his policies, do you think he's proposing too many taxing and spending? my point in this piece i wrote is that, look, in reality he's never going to be able to implement the program on the scale he's laid out. in reality, a sanders presidency would be one of moderate expansion of the social safety net, moderate increases in taxes on the rich, which is fine, no problem at all with that. >> right. and he's been in congress 30-something years. you wind up having to compromise to get people on bills. you don't do everything you want to do. the other side of that, what a biden, buttigieg, klobuchar are

arguing is status quo. so people make the argument, why change? >> that's not true, if you look at the programs that biden is offering, they are for a greatly adviced obamacare, higher taxes on the rich. the whole party has moved to the left. what we call centrists now are advocating policies well to the left of what barack obama was able to do. that's a false choice. and, of course, comparing it with what trump would do if he gets a second term, which would be to savage social security and medicare, totally destroy environmental protection in the country. the idea that there's nothing that a biden presidency would make no difference compared with a second trump term, you have to be completely blink erred to say that. >> especially seasoince the

republicans have told donald trump you can do anything you want consequence free. imagine what he will do with that. emerson college asked, would you vote for the other candidate? 87 of biden, yes. sanders, 53% said they would and 16% said they would not and depends 31%. 90% of warren supporters said absolutely. buttigieg, 86% absolutely. yang supporters down low again, 50% yes, if it's not yang. it feels like there's such an incredible split in the democratic party right now it is in a sense two parties and they're running against, essentially, a cult of personality. your book is arguing with some beaus, which is the more zombie

side? even if we lose to trump we will not vote for anybody else, or this side that's akin to god? >> there are people in the democratic party that are extreme, there's bernie or bust has a slight feel that this kind of personality cult out there. but there's no comparison. the fact of the matter is that all of the democrats believe in rule of law, believe in democracy. all of the democrats are, in fact, advocating policies that would improve people's lives. the correct answer for every one of those candidates to that question should be 100%. the idea that you should sit this election out because the candidate isn't exactly reflecting your ideal policy preferences, that's deeply irresponsib irresponsible. >> quickly before we go. give us the premises of the book, who are the zoom bees? >> the zombies are ideas.

it's an idea that's false, should have been pl should have been proved false. but yet keeps cutting at people's brains. and the zombies are on the right side of the political spectrum, overwhelmingly. >> i wanted to get you to explain that so people didn't think you were calling human zombies. and to get you to say eating people's brains on my show. >> good luck with the book. coming up jared kushner is bringing peace to the middle east. and he only had to read 25 books to do it. why didn't anybody else think of that?

if you like us in the morning you're going to love us in the evening because tonight we have a special pm joy for you live from iowa starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern, 6:00 p.m. central. up next, jared kushner presents his peace plan. and donald trump expands the

travel ban. donald trump expandse travel ban do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

you know, they have a perfect track record of blowing every opportunity they've had in their path, but perhaps maybe their leadership will read the details of it, stop posturing and do what's best to make the palestinian people's lives better. i come from a real estate background, it was hard to draw

the map, and again this isn't because of something we developed. this is something we inherited, the situation where israel continues to grow and grow, and what the president accident occurred -- secured today was israel agreeing to stop for four years to give the palestinians their chance for a state. >> the white house awaited the middle east peace plan from jared kushner. and days later they're adding six countries to the travel ban, which includes nigeria, myanmar, sudan, and tanzania. although trump says this is not a muslim ban, the six countries all have a substantial muslim population and myanmar happens to be persecuting still its muslim population.

aman, jared kushner, thank you for being here, told sky news arabic in preparing to create his peace plan he read 25 books about the israel/palestine conflict. so he read a lot of books about the past. one thing he didn't do was talk to any palestinians. how are they assessing this peace plan? >> i think you're getting quite a reaction today from the arab league meeting in cairo. we'll get to that. but the reaction from the palestinians have been a nonstarter. they're describing it as an insult, they will not consider it, will not entertain it. the president has repeatedly said he rejected calls by president trump for meetings, rejected receiving an advanced copy of the peace plan. so the palestinians have rejected this. i think what you're seeing today is important. since the plan came out tuesday

you've seen the administration posture saying it has been embraced by some people, there was the presence of some arab ambassadors at the event. but the statement by the arab league today is the most telling, it's the complete rejection of the so-called israeli/palestinian peace plan put forth by the administration. the foreign minister said they will not engage with it. they paid some lip service to the administration saying we should get back to the negotiations and thank america for its effort but nobody in the region is looking at the peace plan and saying this is what is going to deliver an end to this conflict and say it does not deliver any palestinian rights, does not offer concessions to the palestinians and therefore should be rejected. all the foreign ministers unanimously agreed this morning in cairo. >> it talked about they would get little tiny pieces of land.

and you saw vice president mike pence come out and say the great security things that israel would get out of it. is there anything in your reading of the plan that palestinians get, besides a tunnel whatever they get in the west bank and gaza? >> the short answer is no. i think trying to understand this, it's important to put this in context, seeing what the american administration defines as peace here, what americans think israeli palestinian want is economic equality, that's not it. they want an end of occupation, they want freedom, the right to live in peace and security. they've made that point clear, and clear in all of their statements. what we're seeing come out of the white house is what they think is a path to palestinian peace and that's economic prosperity. far from it. at the end of the day, anyone who reads this will tell you the way the maps have been drawn up,

the fact that israel maintains control over palestinian lives would make any future palestinians economically dependent on the state of israel. so at the end of the day what you're seeing is an occupation light in the sense that a palestinian state, its entire security would be controlled by israel, entire economy could be controlled by israel and what they're dangling in front of the palestinians today to try to get them to accept are these economic opportunities or zones, as you alluded to, in various parts of israel that they would hand over for some factories or free trade zones but it would not deliver to the palestinian what they've been calling for for decades, freedom, end of occupation, right to not live under a brutal israel military that's been more than 50 years. >> this is a map of the middle

east. this is the map of the middle east, people can see that. then i want to show people the tweets that donald trump -- that is a map of the region as it is now. and here the donald trump tweeting the proposed map, which breaks up what's there now into smaller bites but the water rights, entry and exit points are controlled by israel. let me play one more piece of jared kushner however. this is his interview with christian amanpour. take a listen. >> where does this go next? what do you think is going to happen next since there has not been the full support publically from the heavywaneights in the arab world. >> it's hard to do an interview with you where you're saying these things that are not facts. if i can go back to the premises i don't want to accept in your question, i've studied this closely for the last three years i have not found any maps from

any past negotiations that have been produced nor has there ever been a map in the history of this accepted by the state of israel. hopefully you'll stipulate to that. >> it's like everyone around donald trump is donald trump. he studied for a whole three years, read 25 books so he's the expert, how dare anyone ask him. everyone should take it or leave it because this is apparently the last chance that the palestinian will ever have, take jared kushner's deal, by the way he's a real estate invester so he knows. >> maybe he's right, there's not a map that israel has accepted that's because israel has not accepted past opportunities for palestinian statehood that would return them to the 1967 border. that's the position of the international community what the palestinians have said. so it's true that he's saying they haven't accepted the maps.

is jared kushner lobbying on behalf of israel? is he putting together a peace plan for israel and the palestinians become secondary or does he see his role as a broker between these two sides. i think the answer is clear to anyone who looks at it. few look at it and say american is a pro broker. even more so given the fact that jared kushner has a personal relationship with the current israeli leadership. i don't think anyone is looking at this saying america is playing an honest broker genu e genuinely and saying this is something israel wants done on the ground. >> to say nothing of the optics of the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, indicted at the moment and president trump being impeached being together. it was an interesting week. thank you for taking time. >> my pleasure, any time. coming up, the senate gives donald trump the green light to

do whatever he wants. perfect. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you get more than free shipping. you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! hea country that puts working together ahead of standing apart. where we find common ground to expand health care and build a stronger, fairer economy and save our planet. i'm a problems solver, i build teams, i nurture good ideas, i hold myself accountable for results. it's how i led a complex,

diverse city and it's how i'll unite and lead this country. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. the damage the president

does in pushing out the russian conspiracy theories were identified during the house proceedings and you heard in the senate as russian intelligence propagan propaganda, the danger the president poses by taking vladimir putin's side over his own intelligence agencies, that's a danger today. that's a danger that continues every day he pushes out this russian propaganda. >> given that, can anyone trust that 2020 will be a free and fair election? joining me now is malcolm nance, msnbc contributor and author of "the plot to betray america". this is the ultimate nightmare. you had the republican party tell donald trump it's not impeachable and evhe can get foreign help to help get him ree elected. do you have confidence the next election will be free and fair? i'll put up a poll that shows

most americans think it does not. >> i think we're in a measure of danger that's going to be extremely, extremely critical for the american republican. it's not only that donald trump is being given permission on the basis of what he's done in the past to go and cheat in this election, this vote next wednesday, when he is acquitted will give the entire world permission to attack the united states and perhaps be rewarded for it. so just imagine next november, second tuesday of next november, it may not be russia providing political propaganda beyond what they did in 2016, imagine north korea releasing their entire global hacking network on the democratic party and supporting donald trump's re-election. it could be bad. >> right. you've got the saudis, israel, you've got turkey, you've got all sorts of countries in the

interest in who becomes the next united states president. the poll we put up shows 52% of the americans think the u.s. is prepared to keep the election safe and secure. among democrats it's 31% that feel confident. obviously republicans feel confident because if it's infeared it's to their benefit. is there anything being done at all to keep other countries out of our election systems? if not just propaganda wise but, you know, what if we wake up the night of the election and we're told trump won vermont, how would we deal with an actual interference in the vote? >> right. again, a direct attack on the united states where a nation state has decided that they are going to actually hack the results. and make it so obvious in such a way that one party, the republicans, say well, that's just too bad. that's the result of the election. donald trump wins. and the other party is left

standing there blinking at a president who now believes he can do anything he wants in the national interest. so, of course, all of our opponents in the global threat arena, that's north korea, as you said, saudi arabia has a vested interest in keeping donald trump as president of the united states, and they use israeli, american, and other subcontractors to carry out nefarious hacking and intelligence activities. this nation is going to be under attack, cyber-wise, unlike anything we've seen before. not just disinformation. i think we may possibly finally see people put their hands on the thumbs of the scales of american voting machines or tally machines at the state level, wherever they can. and it will be sloppy. it will be so obvious that again there's nothing we're going to be able to do about it because one side will accept the result. >> evan mcmull lin tweeted the

party he used to be a party of, the republican party, is willing to do anything to keep power because they know they're not going to be able to maintain the white christian america so they're willing to subvert the constitution in order to control power. do you believe as john me chum said on our air that they have essentially made donald trump into a king? >> yes. absolutely. we are at the point, i wrote a whole book about it, my last book, we are at the point where we are not living in a constitutional republic anymore. as you know, a republic is the democracy in which the rights of the minority party are defended. now what we have is we have a constitutional monarchy or awing to be kra si, where donald trump is the supreme element of the state like nauorth korea. if we don't fight to defend the american constitution in the

next election that will be it for america as we've known it. >> malcolm nance thank you. as we like to say on the show, scaring is caring, thank you. more am joy is coming up on the other side of the break. we're going to talk with alex witt about impeachment, so don't go anywhere. maybe grab some coffee and stick around. ome coffee and stick ound

>> malcolm nance thank you. >> malcolm nance thank you when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.

that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

thanks for joining us today. we'll be back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and next alex witt has the latest. how are you? i miss you here in iowa. >> i miss you too. can i just tell you, i don't want to go big brother on you, but i was watching your fans come up and give you hugs and you posing for the selfies. that's fun. nobody wants to do it in the studio. ana doesn't want to give me a hug. i do want to ask you a couple questions, though. >> sure. >> joy, your interpretation of things from your vantage point in des moines. first up, what went through your mind when it appeared key republicans would vote with the president and against calling any witnesses, do you think they were voting really their conscience, meaning what they really felt was right or did they vote out of fear? >> i just met a lovely lady from