tv MSNBC Live MSNBC December 31, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PST
that wraps up this hour. coming up right now more news with morgan ratford. happy new year. >> happy new year to you and thank you for having me. >> good morning, everyone. from head quarters here in new york, i'm in for craig melvin. the blame game. ten days into the government shutdown and the president who said he'd own it is passing the blame to democrats. he's invoking the obama household to try to get his wall. >> and 20/20 vision. elizabeth warren takes the first big step toward a run for the white house in 20/20. we'll talk about her announcement and the pressure it's putting on her fellow democrats. plus donald trump on defense. this coming after yesterday's lunch with lindsey graham. he's apparently slowing down his plan to take u.s. troops out of syria. but we start this morning with a shutdown ten days in and the only thing for certain is it will last into the new year.
neither side is talking. in fact, the only comments today, a slew of presidential tweets. several directed at democrats. also a twitter tirade directed as a recently departed chief of staff. and on sunday there was an interview printed with kelley who gave an unflattering portrait of the president. at one point he suggested trump is as devoted to the concrete wall. kelly said we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration. when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it. obviously this is a potentially damaging insider's take during fraught shutdown negotiations. trump's response, an all concrete wall was never abandoned as has been reported by the media. some areas will be all concrete, but the experts at border patrol prefer a wall that is see through there bimaking it possible to see what's happening on both sides. it makes sense to me. for the latest on the drama and the shutdown, we have hans
nickels for us at the white house. hans, president trump clearly does not enjoy being undercut by his one-time top aide. what's the verdict? does this mean he's still actually pushing for a concrete wall? >> well, it's unclear from the president's tweets. it's also unclear from the picture the president tweeted out claiming there was consensus on the wall. it looked like a spiked deer fence, a high deer fence. it was clearly see through. now the president talking about concrete again. morgan, he's also tweeting saying he's in the oval office at work. i've got to tell you by long standing tradition when the president is in oval office, there a there is a marine outside the west wing. but it wasn't five seconds ago and wasn't wen when the president said i'm in the oval office, democrats come back from vacation now and give us the votes necessary for border security including the wall. you voted yes in 2016.
here's a typo. i think he means 2013, not 3013. one more yes but with me in office, i'll get it built. and fast. we also have this idea of solving this entire dispute. you hear lindsey graham saying you don't need to call it a wall, just get it done. have a listen. >> the wall has become a metaphor for border security. what we're talking about is a physical barrier where it makes sense. >> so that's one possible solution. just figure out a way to all agree on the terminology and go ahead and build it. the president doing all his negotiation this morning via twitter. >> the question is who will live? hans, thank you so much. let's bring in our panel. donna edwards, former democratic congresswoman. and congresswoman edwards, i'd
like to begin with you. trump's answer on a concrete wall simply is not consistent. we saw just two weeks ago he spoke of steel slats and said we're not building a concrete wall. today he says an all concrete wall was never abandoned. which is it? what exactly is the president asking for? >> well, i'm definitely not the trump whisperer. what i imagine is that the president is caught between a rock and a hard place. he was offered $1.3 billion in the senate bill that passed. he has another 1.3 billion he got last year that he hasn't spent. he really already has $2.6 billion for border security if he would just take the deal. i suspect when democrats come in on january 3rd and we have speaker pelosi, i hope that they're going to put that senate bill right on the floor, pass it, send it over to the senate and send it to the president and get this over so government workers can get back to work. >> and speaking of get back to
work, i'd like to turn to alaina. you heard senator graham said the wall is effectively just a metaphor. is that what the president's base believes? will trump supporters settle for a so-called metaphorical wall? >> i think they expect a wall. that's what they've been promised in the rallies for years. i also think as much as it's become a metaphor as lindsey graham would hope, for president trump about border security. i think for democrats it's a metaphor for just trumpism. i think they've overestimated how much democrats might be willing to negotiate, especially now that democrats are taking over the house, because for them bending it all in terms of the wall is bending toward trumpism. i think for both sides they're grababling and pulling in both directions. >> speaking of both directions, i'd like to bring in garrett haake who has been reporting here from the beginning.
you also reported this shutdown is going to last until 2019. what are you seeing on the hill this morning? >> morgan, i saw one of the shortest sessions of the united states congress that i've ever seen. the senate pro forma session lasted about 15 seconds. the house made them look lazy. their session took a couple minutes. then they were over. one lawmaker in each chamber gaveling in and out. no democrats present today. remember, republicans still control both chambers at least until thursday. and remember lawmakers had been told when they left town more than a week ago they would get 24 hours notice if there was any kind of deal to be struck, they would be able to get back in town on time. we can say with certainty that the shutdown will last into 2 9 2019. it's telling that there is no one here. i've been up here basically every day, all of last week, and this does not feel like an urgent concern to lawmakers. there is a widespread
acknowledgment that the dynamic will change on thursday when democrats take control of the house and that maybe perhaps the democrats passing some kind of bill to open the government will put enough pressure on republicans to strike a deal, but it's pretty clear that getting into this shutdown was one thing. particularly for the house republicans who pushed the president in this direction. but getting out of it is something else altogether. there's nothing happening in terms of the wheels turning toward fixing this problem right now. >> and that's what we seem to keep hearing. the report of december engagement from the congressmen and women. the associated press is reporting trump is committed for the long hall. he believes he has public opinion. how much is this about leverage? how do you negotiate with someone who believes that? >> the president is not behaving like a president. the shutdown before cost 24
billion. this one long-term will cost taxpayers more, and this is going to be increased interruption in services and taxpayers are going to be feeling that. the president is misjudging his leverage. his leverage was two weeks ago. he's losing it every day. and i think there's not going to be any support, and no one wins with a shutdown, but the president definitely loses. he said he was going to shut down the government. he shut down the government. he owns this. and taxpayers are going to hold him responsible. >> you mentioned the misjudgment. the question becomes who can actually set the record straight? alaina, democrats say that part of the problem is this mixed messaging. it's coming from the white house. and the president won't actually commit to a deal even as sources told nbc news that vice president pence floated this $2.5 billion figure that. that's down from the $5 billion. that was offered to schumer over
a week ago. is there one clear consistent voice that's coming from the white house on these negotiations? >> i think at this point the only people that both democrats and republicans trust is the president himself. and so until a clear offer comes from the president and then is also confirmed in public, will they actually accept those negotiations? because as you say, the deal between the -- between pence and senator schumer really went nowhere because nobody trusts anyone but the president who deliver that kind of -- an agreement. >> and i -- >> morgan? >> garrett, please. >> not only do they not trust anybody but the president, but the president is not a reliable source on this. on christmas eve he tweeted that he had given out a contract for 115 miles of border wall about which we have not heard another word. nothing backing it up from the white house. no shovel-ready projects starting down on the border. democrats just don't believe anything that they're hearing from this white house until the president says it out loud or is
willing to put it in writing for them. that's how bad the distrust has gotten. >> how important is it that he says it publicly and on the record? because is it enough for him to communicate? we heard he hasn't been communicating with the other side since december 11th. have you heard anything different? >> democrats really do want to see the president own this. it's not enough that someone can speak for the president. lindsey graham is a good deal maker on capitol hill. democrats don't trust that even if he says the president is backing his plan that that's really true, especially after the vice president told senators that the president would support the clean continuing resolution to keep the government open and it fell apart. if you can't trust the vice president. if the chief of staff says one thing and the president contradicts him and if the capitol hill allies who have relationships on both sides of pennsylvania avenue can't reliably speak for the president, how can you get a deal done until the president says out loud and on tape what
he wants? >> it's not just about the inconsistency. it's also about the secrecy of the meetings. congresswoman edwards, i want to play you something that richard shelby said on sunday. take a listen. >> there's a question, when do we get off the blame game and we get to serious negotiations? at the end of the day, all of this will end. we don't know when, in negotiations. it's not a question of who wins or loses. nobody is going to win this kind of game. nobody wins in a shutdown. we all lose. and we kind of look silly. >> he says we don't know when it's going to end, but we know from garrett's reporting that it's not going to end before we see 2019. does anyone look good in this scenario? >> well, i can tell you who doesn't look good, and it's the president of the united states. we all heard him. we saw him. we've seen him over again pledging to shut down the government. holding hostage, 800,000 federal
workers plus all the services that they deliver, and so this is not a game because it requires two players. this is on the president, because he did it and he owned it, and i think the way to get out of this is for house democrats when they take control in january to pass that bill, send it back over to the senate. the senate pass it and put it on the president's desk, and then let him sign it. >> this is the week to find out. we will all be watching and keep our eyes peeled for thursday. donna edwards and alaina snyder and garrett haake, thank you for joining us this morning. stay with us. coming up, 20/20 vision, elizabeth warren appears to be in for 2020. what will the race look like now that the gates are beginning to open. and how the president's plan to pull troops out of syria could be changing. plus what's coming next? what will robert mueller's investigation look like as we head into the new year? stay tuned. w year stay tuned
path that's steeper and rockier, a path made harder by the generations of discrimination. this dark path doesn't have to be our future. we can make our economy work for all of us. we can rebuild america's middle class, but this time we got to build it for everyone. >> so let's get the details from nbc news political reporters from massachusetts and chris and rick, political analysts. mike, the big question for me is why now? why would warren step into the race so early? >> hi, morgan. i think in conversations with senator warren's advisers in these days leading up to today's announcement, there are two take aways in terms of the question. the first is a rather practical consideration. senator warren, unlike some of the other big name democrats does not have a leadership pac,
a piggie bank to use to start spending money to hire key staff. this allows her to move from her reelection campaign into a mode of starting to lock in some of the staff that you really need to get moving and to build a viable 2020 campaign. the second thing i think they want to lay down a marker. obviously when senator warren returns to the senate this week, she's going to be sworn in for her second term. there's going to be a lot of other potential candidates in the cloak room. by coming out today, before even 2018 is over, she gets a jump start and really sends a message to the other potential candidates in the race that she's going to run on her own time frame. she's not going to let other candidates dictate what she does. since we heard from her this morning in terms of the video and e-mail to supporters, we've got an new tweet from senator warren. she says i'll announce a zig early in the new year, but here's one thing i know. i can't do this alone. she's already appealing to her
supporters to help raise that kind of grass roots money that's critical in democratic campaigns. >> you mention she's sending this message to her colleagues. what about the backlash? rick, i want to follow up on the element of timing. we are in the midst of a government shutdown. is the senator opening herself up for criticism by launching the committee in the middle of a shutdown? >> sure, but no one is going to remember the shutdown after it's over even though it's going to last a long time. i think she was smart to get out for a couple reasons. she needs to establish herself as the dominant progressive in the race. there will be several. the other is, and i think she's well aware of this. she needs to deal with this self-inflected wound, the dna debacle. by doing this, every story that i read today dealt with it either in the first or second paragraph. although that's not optimal, it needs to process out so it doesn't keep getting written about and if you announce later you want it to have run its
course, so we'll see if that's a winning strategy or not. the problem that senator warren has, i think, is she drives the democratic party too far to the left. and so if you look at her support among democrats, it's really high. she enjoys good support among democrats but not so much among independents and republicans. if you look at her broad base support, it's not that good. she's a polarizing figure. i'm not comparing her to donald trump, but her support base is essentially where donald trump's is. that's not what you want. maybe she hopes to resolve that. >> you mentioned she's like donald trump in some of her tacti tactics. >> on her popularity. >> excuse me. but she's taking to twitter as is the president and he's often used his tweets to target her. are his attacks against senator warren, are they -- he's called her pocahontas.
is this hurting her. and all of trump's critical attention? >> she didn't play the dna thing very well. some were questioning her political accumen. i think she can get by it. my point is the democrats really want a candidate who cannot only appeal to the democrat and the democratic base, but can appeal to independents and moderate republicans who don't want to vote for donald trump. she essentially is -- has the same kind of support that donald trump has among his base, i wanted to say the right, but it's not just that. that she has on the left. that's just a very polarizing election. what you want is someone who has much more broader appeal and it makes the task of beating trump easier. >> mike, warren ranked poorly behind other known democrats in a poll. biden, sanders, beto o'roarke,
harris. and she was in sixth. at 27 %, what should we take away from that, or is it still too early? >> it certainly is still early. it's interesting considering the 2020 democratic presidential primary. ordinarily we'll talk about the way democratic voters approach this in terms of the issues most important to them. is there a litmus test that candidates have to line up on in order to earn their vote. i think with donald trump in the white house and the urgency that so many democrats feel in needing to beat him, electability is so much more of a factor perhaps in this primary than any other factor. i think that's reflecting itself. democrats know in 2016 they spent a lot of time not talking about hillary clinton's credentials but her e-mails. there's concern among democrats that are we going to be talking about pocahontas throughout the campaign? >> and what about the types of democrats? chris, this same poll asked
democrats and independents who this were most excited about. most said someone entirely new. in fact, nearly six in ten of those surveyed, 59% said they would be excited about a candidate about like, but only 11 % say they prefer a new face not run. chris, what is your take away from that? does an established politician like elizabeth warren stand a chance in 2020? >> well, i mean, i think when you have what's probably going to be a pretty large field in the race of maybe 20 candidates, i'm not sure what the new face is, but they'll all be new faces. other than joe biden you don't have candidates that have really run before. they all come from very different perspective. elizabeth warren has an interesting profile, background. in terms of her policy positions, her ideology, the appeals to the critical base of voters that democrats need. democrats need to win back those union voters, those middle class working class voters that we
lost some in those key midwest states. i think she helps attract that. other candidates are going to do that as well. i think the challenge, i think, for elizabeth warren and any of the candidates is how do you stand out in such a massive field. it was easy last cycle when you had basically bernie sanders versus hillary clinton. media focussed on both. here you're going to have essentially multiple candidates, and the ability to attract media attention to get your base energi energized, to win over supporters and get money and get support is going to be really critical. i think the reason why she's announcing what is kind of i would say kind of an odd time is for a simple reason. she wants to come out of the gate early part of next year and really start hitting those early states. i think you're going to see probably a bit of an avalanche over the next month of candidates realizing there's not a lot of time when you this many people in the race. a year goes fast.
>> what about the other size? rick, we've talked about the doctori democratic field. what about kasich, flake, rom y romney? how likely is it the president will face a bottle in 2020? >> it depends on what's in the mueller investigation, what the committees might uncover. right now i'd say they don't have -- right now if i had to guess today, they'd say they don't have a chance because there's this democratic party -- i mean the republican is so supportive of donald trump. and donald trump has merged a reelection campaign with the rnc. it's going to be difficult for someone to breakthrough that. >> difficult but early road ahead. thank you all so much for joining us. and coming up, last day at the pentagon. the parting message from secretary jim mattis to u.s. service members on his last day on the job. stay tuned.
hans nichols is back with us from the white house. if you can, take us inside the pentagon. how much of an impact is mattis's departure having this morning and what are the priorities that patrick shanahan has ahead of him. >> the priorities will be the same. mattis is trying to ensure an orderly transition so people in the pentagon and down range fighting in places like syria, iraq, and afghanistan don't detect a difference at the top of the dod, at the top of the pentagon. what mattis is saying today is in large part keeping what he said publicly and privately during his two years as secretary of defense. there's a video about a year ago when he was in jordan telling his troops to hold the line with all the dissengs in the political ugliness in the country. at the time he was read as a rebuke of president trump, but he's been saying this military needs to do what they do, ban
together, make sure the defenses of america stay firm and fast and not let any of the internal divisions cloud their thinking. it's been a standard mattis line for two years. shanahan will be the acting deputy secretary of defense. he will need to manage this withdrawal from syria. unclear how quickly or not it will happen. there is still 5,000 troops in iraq that the president is very much wanting to keep there. and then there are report that the president wants to draw down roughly half of the troops from afghanistan. a full plate for shanahan. he has been sitting at mattis's feet the last two years. those were the only training he had in geopolitical and foreign affairs. other than that he was an engineer coming up through the ranks at boeing. >> which means we have another acting secretary with his work cut out for him. hans, thank you so much. president trump's hard line position on america's withdarawl
from syria may be softening. opt of the plan, left a lunch at the white house just yesterday convinced that u.s. forces would continue to play a short-term role. >> he told me some things i didn't know that make me feel a lot better about where we're headed in syria. he promised to destroy isis. he's going to keep that promise. we're not there yet. but as i said today, we're inside the ten-yard line, and the president understands the need to finish the job. >> to help us you said what all of this means, i'd like to bring in erin geerin. the president is tweeting about his policy and emphasizing he'll be slowly sending our troops back home. how do you think lawmakers in washington and even our allies overseas are interpreting this message today? >> well, morgan, i think what lindsey graham said yesterday is really being born out in trump's
tweets this morning. the idea that this thing is still happening. it is going to be at some point a full withdrawal as trump has said twice on twitter this morning, it's a campaign promise he's fulfilling. but it isn't going to happen all at once right away in the sort of sudden and impulsive way that drew a lot of criticism from graham and others. the president announcing it on twitter and just sort of declaring by fiat that isis is defe defeated. graham is only one of the prominent voices but probably the most prominent republican to criticize the president on that point and say isis is not defeated. another very important voice is israel. >> and it's interesting, because you mentioned this impulsiveness. i think that is what has a lot of people concerned. but i want to take a listen to something we heard on sunday. and this is from someone who has plenty of experience in hot
spots over the years. that's retired general stanley mccrystal. listen to what he said. >> if you pull american influence out, you're likely to have greater instability and, of course, it will be much more difficult for the united states to try to push events in any direction. >> ann, we talked about the impulsiveness, but he's talking about the instability. do you think the next wave of military leadership is really going to be able to convey that message to the president? >> well, whoever replaces mattis and this is mattis's last day on the job as you were reviewing a short time ago, whoever replaces mattis is actually likely to have less influence over the president than mattis did. i think that's very much an open question. one of the things that did mattis in with the president is the sense that the president and some of his closest advisers had that mattis was sort of overmanaging the president and not letting trump be trump, and
it's sort of become this nay sayer in the president's eyes. he does not want that again. and while i don't think it's going to be shanahan elevated to the position permanently, the senate armed services committee that would have to confirm the next secretary doesn't seem interested in that. it is not likely to be somebody of mattis's stature, a four-star retired marine general who was among the first people from the beginning who could tell the president he was making bad choices. >> you mentioned the nay sayers. speaking of nay sayers, this bomb shell exit interview with the los angeles times that john kelly gave he details the president's desire to get out of afghanistan back in the summer of 2016 and now we're expecting a major drawdown there as well. how is that being received in washington today? >> well, it's being received a couple different ways. one is that it's confirming the kelly interview confirms several things that the white house had
attempted to say weren't true when they were happening. and me and others reported they were happening. the other thing i thought was remarkable and a lot of people are commenting on this in the days since that interview appeared, is that kelly is asking to be judged on the things he stopped the president from doing rather than in things he actually says he helped the president to do. he's saying hey, look, i was a force for good. i was in there keeping disaster from happening right and left. it's a fairly remarkable thing for the outgoing chief of staff to say. >> it's interesting. that's kind of what we even heard nikki haley say when she said this is something i had to work with his tendencies as a president and use that to my advantage to get my job done. >> yeah. she said it with a little more perhaps gentleness and tact, but yeah. >> it was definitely more gentle. i would say this was a bomb shell. thank you, ann. a pleasure speaking with you. coming up, robert mueller's investigation moves into 2019. here's where things stand right now and where things are going.
your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. rudy giuliani is delivering an ultimatum to robert mueller as he closes in on his nearly
two-yearlong investigation. take a listen. >> i ultimatum is put up or shut up, bob. what do you have? there are those of us who believe you don't have anything on collusion. by the way, if he did krrk it's not a crime. what do you have on collusion? if you don't have a thing on collusion, it's a phony. >> put up or shut up, he says. joining me now msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor glen and contributor jill, also a former assistant water gate prosecutors. glen, pete williams reported muler is likely to wrap up his investigation by mid february. what do you think is the end game here? what should we expect in these next few weeks? >> well, morgan, first of all if ken and pete are reporting that, i take it to the bank. i think mid february report if it did drop would not be the end game. it would probably be an incremental step toward the end game. it may be that mueller has
wrapped up discrete portions of the investigation to report it out. but i do believe that more indictments are coming. the next one may very well be an indictment on the wikileaks scandal involving jerome corsi and roger stone. perhaps even julian assange as a named co-conspirator in that aspect of the investigation. but i think if a report does drop, there is likely so much more that will come after that. i don't think mueller is necessarily winding down yet. >> so a lot of names receiving a lot of attention. but jill, what strikes me is that rudy giuliani continues to say collusion is not a crime. but what exactly does he mean by that? and what are the implications if mueller finds that trump's campaign did, in fact, collude with russia? >> what rudy giuliani means is that he's playing to the base.
he's making a pr statement. it's not a legal statement. he is correct. there is no crime that is identified as solution. but that's just what the prezss is calling it. it is conspiracy to interfere with the election. it's a conspiracy to defraud the united states. those are crimes. those are indictable crimes. they also are impeach m crimes. i agree with what glen said. i don't think even if there is a report in february, that it's the end of the investigation or the activities in the special counsel's office. when we issued our report to congress, we did it the same day as our indictment. it was in march of '74. the case continued. the trial didn't go ahead until september. the verdict was in january of '75. there's still a lot that happens after you issue a report. and what i'm hoping with this
report is that it will become public. there will be hearings about it so the public can learn what is going on, the public can then judge for itself the credibility of witnesses. that's an important thing in a democracy. that's what we need is public disclosure of the evidence. >> saying give us the tools so we can decide for ourselves. i find it interesting you make this distinction between dietable and impeachable crimes. we spoke with a former federal prosecutor who said he's starting to believe conspiracy with russian election meddling may not be the most serious crime mueller is investigating. how far-reaching could this investigation be? >> that's a great question. i read ken delaney's thoughtful, extended piece. very enlightening. i think some of the commentators in that article were right, because we are going to certainly see from bob mueller
an answer on the question of collusion which as jill accurately points out is conspiracy with russia. we're also going to see information from bob mueller about a coverup which is obstructing justice. then we're going to see a third area. that is consequences. what consequences did russian collusion and coordination have on donald trump's decisions moving forward as president? for example, is that why he gave what can only be called aid and comfort to putin in helsinki when he stood up and announced putin has strongly denied election interference and i don't see why it would be russia. i believe we're going to see answers on collusion or conspiracy, on coverup or obstruction, and ultimately on the consequences of the actions donald trump took behind that possible collusion. >> jill, i want to give you the closing thought. i have to get your opinion on
that. we heard consequences. what are the legal and political implications going forward for the president? >> they are very different. the legal consequences are indictment which i and many other commentators, lawrence tribe and many others, believe constitutional -- i think the president could be indicted if there is sufficient evidence to hold him accountable for violating existing laws. the other thing that can happen is a political action that congress based on the reaction of the american people may take action to investigate and return articles of impeachment and to possibly even convict the president and remove him from office because of political wrong doing. that doesn't require the same level of evidence as committing crimes which have very specific rules that have to be proved. but it can be anything that is a high crime or misdemeanor.
the definition is still very open, but i think we've seen in plain sight many acts that are both violations of existing law as well as impeachable. the things like even the emoluments clause. those could be ground for impeach immaterial for his violating the trust of the american people. >> joe, we keep hearing the term impeachment. it looks like 2019 will be filled with even more political drama. >> thank you both. coming up, a major cyber attack on a major u.s. newspaper. this is the latest high profile hack raising new concerns about the security of our private information. our private information.
at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll find gold in them therr hills on your vacation. but we can guarantee the best price on this rental cabin. or any accomodation from hotels to yurts. booking.com, booking.yeah about the colonial penn program. here to tell you if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price.
a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you, too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed, and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. and with this plan, you can pick your payment date, so you can time your premium due date to work with your budget. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, and it's yours just for calling.
a search is under way for the attackers who used malware to cripple some of the nation's largest newspapers. the infected systems are crucial to the news production and the printing processes at "the los angeles times" including "the chicago tribune" and the "new york daily news." even the west coast edition to
"the new york times" were affected because they're at the l.a. times printing plant. we'll switch gears with late breaking news. it seems like, garrett, a flurry of activity. can you tell us what's happening now? >> we're all used to these headlines by now. another major corporation hack, more concerns about data, another set of worries about hacking and all of it raising questions into the new year about the best ways to protect your information. >> reporter: with a new year on the horizon, this morning, new fears about hacking after a cyber attack over the weekend caused printing disruptions at the los angeles times and other newspapers across the country. "the l.a. times" citing a source with knowledge of the situation reports the attack appeared to have originated outside of the u.s. tribune publishing owns several newspapers that still share a production platform with the
times. in a statement, tribune said the company continues the diagnosis and remediation of the malware that affected a portion of the back office systems used to publish and produce newspapers. it's just the latest in a series of high profile hacks in 2018. targeting companies like t-mobile, google and orbitz. facebook revealing nearly 50 million of its users were hacked, attackers gaining access to their facebook accounts and other accounts linked to them. one involved marriott's star wood hotel chain with half a billion customers personal information stolen by hackers over a four year period. what should you do if you're hacked? notify your bank or credit card company and determine the extent of the damage, even if you're not hacked, the personal data is still vulnerable. >> when it comes to your name, date of birth, chances are numerous hacking organizations have it because they've broken into companies that store it. >> what can you do to prevent being hacked?
a unique password for every account and never reuse passwords across sites. download a passenger on your desktop or phone. >> you save a password manager, you never have to remember one except the one that opens your password manager. >> check your bank and credit card statements for signs of fraud. >> now, gary rerett, they said came outside of the u.s. any idea who's responsible? >> reporter: when we talk to security experts, they say attacks like this against big companies tend to be done by actors who are either associated with a country or backed up by another country but so far, no word yet on who exactly was targeting the paper. the paper says they don't think anyone's personal information was stolen in this hack. >> still, garrett, i think you had every one of our iphones to make sure we're secure. >> and your smart watch, speaker, everything.
>> all the things. we'll be watching in the new year. thank you so much, garrett. we'll be right back here on msnbc. garrett we'll be right back here on msnbc. heumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief.
at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. that wraps up this hour of "msnbc live." i'm morgan radford. my colleague chris jan sing takes over. >> i am here in for andrea mitchell in new york.
right now, offer up ten days in. house democrats have a plan ready to end the partial government shutdown as the president blames them and nancy pelosi prepares to take back the speaker's gavel in just three days. the bitter end, outgoing white house chief of staff, john kelly, drops a few bombs in his exit interview. and so it begins. elizabeth warren becomes the first big name dem to declare her intention to take on donald trump in 2020. but we've got breaking news with the shutdown on day ten. house democrats have decided on a plan to try to reopen the government after they take control of the chamber on thursday. a senior democratic aide confirms to nbc news, they're ready to go. let's go straight to garrett hake on capitol hill. >> reporter: here's the game plan. remember, this shutdown revolves around seven spending bills that didn't get passed before tend of
last year. the democrats now vote to put six of those bills on the floor and fund those agencies through the entire year of 2019. those are bipartisan bills that were already negotiated in the senate. the homeland security portion of this, on a continuing resolution. take the money for last year, lock it in through february. again, a short-term continuing resolution for the homeland security portion of this and that would include $1.3 billion for border security. none of it for a wall. this essentially reopens the government, in theory, if this were all to pass and be signed by the president, reopen the government with another fight over the funding just for the border security part of this in february but get the federal government back up and running. if only it were that simple. senate republicans say they were not going to put anything on the floor that the president won't sign and the president has been clear-ish that he won't sign anything without more money for his border wall. so what this effectively will