tv MSNBC Live With Ali Velshi MSNBC October 28, 2019 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
country. quote, i couldn't do it because i was thinking about my brother. the senate majority leader's office has not commented. that will wrap things up for me this hour. chris jansing is here. chris. >> katy, thank you for that. it is monday, october 28th. additional evidence of obstruction. that's the analysis today from house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff saying that republicans are actually bolstering the case for impeachment by trying to block witnesses from testifying. right now, there is a constitutional power struggle between the white house and congressional democrats after former deputy national security advisor charles kupperman didn't show up for his testimony today. he was a key advisor to john bolton and is waiting for a judge to rule on his congressional subpoena since the white house wants to block him from testifying. and that's what led schiff to warn that trying to block witnesses who have critical testimony makes for a powerful obstruction case against the
president. and that's not the only court action going on. today, the justice department said they'll fight a federal judge's ruling requiring them to give democrats grand jury material that's related to the mueller report. the impeachment battle ground expands, there's growing anxiety within the president's party. the post saying gop senators voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted. with neither convincing arguments from the white house, nor confidence that something worse won't soon be discovered. joining me now from capitol hill is msnbc's garrett haake. and washington correspondent for "the new york times" and msnbc contributor charlie savage. he's also offer of power wars. the relentless rise of presidential authority and secrecy. there's the book. garrett, a judge has yet to be assigned to kupperman's lawsuit. but how long could this take? and what's at stake here?
>> chris, an update within the last few minutes. there is, in fact, now a judge assigned to this case. >> really? >> yeah. things are finally moving here in the -- in the u.s. district courts. but there's no hearing set yet. look, this could only be a matter of days till this is adjudicated. but democrats do not want to wait. they've got a packed schedule of other depositions. three people coming for depositions on wednesday alone. with no end in sight to the number of witnesses, they may want to call before they even take this into the public hearing phase of their impeachment inquiry. so the idea of getting bogged down in back and forth filings and appeals potentially for an unknown amount of time is not something the democrats want to engage in. instead, as you alluded to in the open, adam schiff who's been running this inquiry for democrats said if you refuse to comply, if you refuse to come forward, democrats are going to treat that as evidence of obstruction and you may see them build that into a second article of impeachment when we reach that stage.
>> so, charlie, are there any grounds, any legal ways for house investigators to speed up this process if it goes more than a couple of days? i mean, members are still talking about public hearings getting going next month. >> yeah. no. i don't think that they can do anything realistically to force someone to testify who wants to hide behind the white house's theory that they don't have to testify because the impeachment inquiry's a sham, et cetera, et cetera. because it will take a long time for any judge to decide it, it doesn't matter what the decision is, trump would appeal or the other side would appeal. then appeal again. then appeal again. it is a strategy to run out the clock. this very issue of whether top aides in the white house are absolutely immune from testifying was already cued up months and months ago when the white house said don mcgahn didn't have to respond to a subpoena back when we were all talking about mueller and obstruction instead of ukraine. they filed a lawsuit against mcgahn to try to compel that in july. here it is almost november and that hasn't had even a district court ruling yet.
so i think democrats are making the calculation that fighting it in court is a losing battle. they would break their momentum and maybe they already have enough evidence for them to move forward with whatever they're going to do anyway. >> yeah. although, house intel chairman not surprisingly adam schiff seemed confident, charlie, that there was no legitimate legal basis for kupperman not to testify. let me play that. >> a private citizen cannot sue the congress to try to avoid coming in when they're served with a lawful subpoena. we expect that the court will make sure that argument but nonetheless, we move forward. dr. kupperman had testimony we believe would corroborate the allegations of misconduct that other witnesses have made. but we move forward and we will obviously consider as we inform dr. kupperman's counsel, his failure to appear as evidence that may warrant a contempt proceeding against him.
>> well, speaking of kupperman's counsel, his lawyer does call this a momentous constitutional dispute. whenever this ult mightiimatelyg decided and wherever it goes, how important could it be? >> well, this line between where the president's power to keep information in secret and where congress's power to compel the production of information for oversight or impeachment purposes, where you draw that line is very murky. there's very, very few concrete rock solid supreme court precedents to tell us where that line is drawn. usually, because presidents back down or there is a negotiation, an accommodation process. trump is different than his predecessors in many ways and one of them is he is openly stonewalling. he is defiantly trumpeting the fact that he's going to fight all subpoenas and take these really extreme absolutist positions and appeal if he loses and take the loss and then appeal again because he's trying to run out the clock basically. and so that has actually set up
the possibility that 225 plus years into this country's history, almost 250, we may eventually actually get some rulings about where to draw those lines that will have consequences for future presidents. but that's not what anyone cares about today. >> charlie, thank you for that. garrett haake, appreciate it as always. now, adding to the revelations from witnesses so far, nbc news has exclusive reporting this afternoon that white house officials were alerted way back in may that ukraine's president was worried about rudy giuliani's pressure campaign to get dirt on joe biden. much earlier than we knew before. so it turns out ukraine's president was unnerved even before he was officially sworn into office. joining me now, nbc's national security reporter, dan deluse. so, dan, walk us through your reporting. what did you find out? and how does it complicate the administration's position? >> well, it does show that a senior white house official all the way back in may at about the
time zelensky is being inaugurated as ukraine's president, learns that zelensky and his aides are extremely concerned and really bewildered by this pressure that they're feeling from the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani and the president's ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland. and they are pushing zelensky to make changes in the leadership of the main state energy gas company in ukraine. which is incredibly important company for ukraine and its economy. and they're confused by this and they're worried and they see it as part of a wider kind of pressure campaign that's going on. and it seems to be on this parallel track from official u.s. policy. and so the official who learns about this is fiona hill. a senior official at the national security council who stepped down in august. and this helps her kind of
crystallize her understanding that there's this shadow foreign policy going on outside of regular channels. and she then briefs john bolton, national security advisor at that time. and this is the week of may 20th when zelensky is inaugurated as president of ukraine long before that sort of famous phone call in july we've all heard about. >> dan deluse. interesting stuff and how it fits into the impeachment inquiry. thank you for that. by the way, people can read that story on nbc. -- nbc news.com. meantime, how about this quote? it feels like a horror movie. one veteran republican senator put it that way to the washington post as the impeachment inquiry nears month number two. republican officials reportedly struggling to answer for the onslaught of dramatic developments made by a growing list of credible career officials. as "the washington post" puts it, mcconnell, who has shared related concerns in private conversations with other senators, has been preparing for a possible senate impeachment
trial. and earlier this month, he showed a dry power point presentation to republican senators explaining how one might unfold. one republican strategist who's been advising senators told the post there's frustration. it feels to everyone like they're just digging a hole and making it worse. it just never ends. it's a total blank show. house speaker nancy pelosi had a four-word response to that, look to your oath. joining me now, one of the reporters on the story. white house bureau chief and msnbc political analyst phillip rucker. national security correspondent for politico and an msnbc contributor. so phillip so far this level of frustration hasn't exactly translated to losing support from senate republicans. they're not marching out along with the utah senator and saying, hey, this is bad. this has got to stop. but privately, is the conversation changing at all? >> yeah.
chris, there's a really depth of exasperation privately among these republican senators. that's not to say that they're prepared at this stage to convict president trump in an impeachment trial. in fact, they would very much like to be able to defend him. but they feel like they don't have the full set of facts. they don't have credible arguments to defend the president on the substance of what's being uncovered in these impeachment proceedings. they have zero faith in the white house team to put together a credible defense of the president. and they -- they feel, as that one senator told my colleague bob costa for this story, like they're trapped in a horror movie. and so there's a real sense of frustration and anxiety right now. >> so i mean, are they planning their own messaging campaign? is -- is the strategy to avoid cameras as much as they can? what are they talking about doing about it, phillip? >> well, the strategy right now is to just try to be quiet. >> duck and run? >> duck and run pretty much.
you ask, you know, rank and file republican senator these days at the capitol to respond to these things and they'll give you some variation of an answer that basically says i might be a juror in the senate trial. i'm not going to engage and answer that question. i want to wait and see all the facts come forward. but behind the scenes, these folks are very concerned because they know that they're ultimately going to probably have to make a choice between their conscience and a political calculation because trump remains so popular with republican voters. they're fearful of voting to convict him even if they feel like the facts warrant that measure. >> you know, i found it interesting that just as a former white house chief of staff john kelly said in an interview over the weekend that he warned the president not to replace him. kelly, a sycophant. has been a constant target from gop lawmakers. i mean, what's your sense,
phillip? is another shake-up coming? and if so, what might that mean for impeachment? >> you know, there have been rumblings chris for some time now that mulvaney's days may be numbered. that the president has grown frustrated with him. he's gotten a lot of heat for the lack of a really forceful defense in both the public relations sense but also in terms of the substance as it relates to this impeachment inquiry that's gone on for a month now. but there's no sign that mulvaney's going to be heading out the door right away and that's for a number of reasons. including the fact that there's not a ready replacement waiting in the wings. and because they're in the middle of an impeachment crisis and mulvaney's been a part of this story from the beginning and there's a feeling in the white house that it's better to keep him close. that said, republican allies on capitol hill are very frustrated with him and feel like he has not delivered a credible game plan for how the republican party can navigate all of this. >> so in the meantime, natasha, you have new reporting that all the events surrounding the impeachment inquiry are leaving ukrainian policy in chaos. andrew weiss, who served on
president clinton's national security council heading up ukraine policy told you for the last five years, it was a given that the u.s. had ukraine's back. now, that's going to be far more complicated with a lot more distrust and a lot more scrutiny. so who do ukrainian officials go to? who can they trust? >> that's exactly what we asked the state department repeatedly and the u.s. embassy to the eu last week and they were unable to give us any kind of coherent answer. what we heard from the ukrainians and experts on ukrainian policy was that, you no, all of the people, all on the u.s. side that the ukrainians really trusted to speak to about their issues have gone, they've resigned. so you have fiona hill, of course, who was the former ukraine advisor. she resigned. kurt volker who was leading negotiations to end the war between the ukraine and russians, he's gone even though he has played a role in this
quid pro quo scandal, he was also very trusted by the ukrainians. and of course the person, you know, they arguably trusted the most, the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, she was ousted in a campaign. a smear campaign. so the people ukrainians would have gone to to make sure, for example, military assistance aid continues to flow, to make sure that they're able to sufficiently confront the existential adversary to their east, that being russia, are pretty much out of the picture. and the people who are still there, folks like bill taylor, the acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine and george kent who is still heading up ukraine policy at the state department. they are significantly weakened because they are in the middle of, you know, this fight between congress and the white house. they've had to hire lawyers and deal with this impeachment inquiry. and, of course, the trump administration does not seem particularly interested at this point in reverting back to their default policy on ukraine. default support for ukraine because the president is still very suspicious that ukraine may have played a role in the 2016 election. and of course, now the justice
department under bill barr is investigating that. so there's a whole lot of chaos here and the ukrainians really struggling with how to navigate it. >> good to see both of you. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> up next, an nbc news exclusive. a general of the syrian democratic forces tells our richard engel it was a kurdish source who ultimately led u.s. special ops to isis leader al-baghdadi and provided the crucial intelligence used in that military operation leading to his death. richard engel will join us from syria after the break. plus, we're looking at the implications al-baghdadi's death could have on the future of isis. you're watching msnbc. isis you're watching msnbc. unpredictable crohn's symptoms following you? for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores,
have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. we're oscar mayer deli fresh your very first sandwich,m... your mammoth masterpiece. and...whatever this was. because we make our meat with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. make every sandwich count with oscar mayer deli fresh.
hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today. some fascinating new information coming in about the weekend raid in syria that culminated in the death of isis leader al-baghdadi. the defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff revealed in a news conference this afternoon that two men have been detained during that operation.
they also said they do indeed have videos and photos of the raid but they're not ready to release them yet. meantime, the leader of the kurdish-led syrian democratic forces told nbc news in an exclusive interview, the group did indeed have a source inside baghdadi's inner circle who provided critical information that led to the raid. and baghdadi cornered detonated his suicide vest. here's president trump during a speech to police chiefs in chicago today. >> we killed isis leader al-baghdadi. they've been looking for him for a long time. they've been looking for him for many years. he was a sick and depraved man and now he's dead. he's dead as a doornail. and he didn't die bravely either. i will tell you that. he should've been killed years ago. another president should have gotten him.
>> and then there's this drone video showing u.s. forces leveled the compound where baghdadi died. all that remains are piles of rocks and broken cement. joining us to talk about all this, nbc news white house correspondent kristin welker. kristin, controversy has come in the midst of all this while everyone acknowledges it's a fantastic thing to get rid of the world's most wanted terrorist, the way in which it came together has upset a lot of democrats. normally, they would have been as part of the leadership team notified. they weren't. then house republican leader kevin mccarthy came out and said, well, i wasn't notified either. what's the white house saying about this break with long-time protocol? >> well, the white house is saying, look, they did notify some top republicans, chris, before they alerted the media and made this news public. the reason the president has said that he didn't alert democrats is because he doesn't think that he can trust them with such sensitive information. he cites the impeachment inquiry
on capitol hill in which there have been some leaks. and yet today the white house is struggling to get specific. what specifically, for example, has house speaker nancy pelosi leaked? my colleague peter alexander pressing gidley earlier today. take a look. >> what evidence does president trump have that nancy pelosi has ever disclosed national security secrets in the past? >> well, i mean, we literally have a litany of hearings going on right now in which democrats are selectively leaking that information. >> evidence by nancy pelosi. nancy pelosi. one example of nancy pelosi. >> you guys are the ones who get the leaks. you tell me. >> i have no examples. that's why i'm asking you. >> is it because you won't reveal your sources? or because you know it's not nancy pelosi? >> no one has identified an example of nancy pelosi -- >> there have been many examples of democrats leaking information selectively to members of the
media. >> chris, part of this just underscores how tense things are right now between the white house and capitol hill. particularly, house democrats. as this impeachment inquiry intensifies and enters yet another day. so the question becomes, will the white house comply with house speaker nancy pelosi, who is demanding that she get briefed? i pressed hogan gidley on that. are there any plans to brief lawmakers at this point in time? he wasn't able to give any specifics, chris. so that, under a microscope. as well as the president's broader foreign policy as it relates to syria. that's one of the things that democrats want to know about. they want to know, for example, how many troops are going to be kept in syria. remember, president trump as part of his announcement over the weekend said there would, in fact, be a residual force manning the oil fields. well, how big will that force be? hogan gidley was asked about that today. still no specifics as it relates to the number of troops that will be kept in syria.
and then how specifically do they plan to make sure that isis is not resurgent? you have a number of lawmakers, democrats, and republicans, who say while baghdadi's death is undoubtedly a tactical victory, they are concerned that other isis fighters could become emboldened. chris. >> thank you for that. chief foreign correspondent richard engel who joins us from northern syria. i want to hear more about the interview you did with the head of the democratic forces and its role in the operation. what happens next? what did he tell you? >> so it wasn't just the general. we got a full debrief from several kurdish officials. but the general is the leader of what's called the sdf, the syrian democratic forces. they are the group that has been fighting with american special forces here for the last five years. they have a tremendous amount so they were involved deeply in the planning of this operation.
but until i sat down with the general, we didn't exactly know how deeply. and he -- he told an extraordinary story about how for the last five months, they have had one particular source. when you're talking about building an intelligence picture to take down osama bin laden or in this case baghdadi, there's not ever one smoking bullet. but if there was anything close, it sounds like it was this source. they had a source very -- very close to baghdadi and his inner circle. he was ascribed as a security advisor who was someone who could get regular access. not daily. baghdadi didn't do that kind of thing. he kept very much -- very, very private into a even smaller circle. but he had if not -- he had regular access to him although somewhat infrequent that he was able to get -- he was trusted. he was able to get inside baghdadi's compounds and then for the last five months, he was
watching as baghdadi really didn't move that much. he moved to a few different locations. but more or less in that same part of idlib that he ended up being found in and killed in according to general mazloum. he said that the source was able to go inside the compound, particularly that last compound, and conduct a tremendous amount of reconnaissance. just visual reconnaissance. looking around. remembering what he saw. he couldn't bring any kind of recording device. he couldn't bring a cell phone. and if you -- you got anywhere near baghdadi, you weren't allowed to bring phones or computers or laptops or anything like that. so he would have to just rely on visual memory. what do the rooms look like? how many steps? are there tunnels? what's upstairs? are there any distinguishing features? courtyards? he specifically mentioned water tanks and that the kurds were running this source. that the source was motivated by vengeance effectively. that the source had an anger that he had been part of isis. he was part of the inner circle
and that he -- he turned and he wanted revenge against baghdadi personally. and that he believed that there was a different way. that he had a change of mind according to general mazloum. but the first thing he said is the guy wanted revenge and that they were running him for five months until they passing along information all the time to the cia. including this one extraordinary detail that they were even able to get samples of baghdadi's clothing. his underwear and a blood sample so that they could show to the -- to the cia, look, our source is real. they are -- this source is able to get personal items, including his underwear and blood, and get them to the -- to the cia and the cia, according to general mazloum, tested them and they both matched positive for baghdadi's dna. so to have a source like that is -- is -- is just extraordinary. and general mazloum said that this source was there at the compound when the raid took place. and that he left when american
troops left. >> wow. all the more extraordinary given his obsession with personal security. richard engel, thank you for that. fascinating report. joining us to take a closer look at the impact and significance of al-baghdadi's death, new york times foreign correspondent who covers isis and al qaeda. she is also an msnbc contributor. ann bremer is here with me. president and founder of the risk research consulting firm you ray sha group. he's also president and founder of g 0 media. mini, i want to pick up right where we left off with richard and this incredible interview that he did about the -- the informant. wow. it seems to me based on your reporting that it would be a very wide circle of people who would want to take revenge against al-baghdadi. and i want to read a little bit from what you wrote. acting under the orders of a delegated committee headed by al-baghdadi, the group known variously as isis, isil, and
daesh. women accused of adultery were stoned to death. thieves had their hands hacked off. men who had defied the militants were beheaded. some of the most notorious atrocities carried out by bag day idea and his followers included the organized rape of women considered to be non-believers including the people who lived in northern iraq. tell us more about why he was the world's most wanted terrorist and am i right in my assumption that there would have been a very wide circle of people who would have potentially wanted to take revenge against him? >> sure. so -- so al-baghdadi first came to our notice in 2014. i would say in the public's notice. when isis blitzkrieged across iraq and syria and took over a territory that was equal in size to great britain.
they ruled a population that was between 8 and 12 million people. they earned hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars from taxes and from the other commerce that they ran under their rule. and this is unprecedented for a terrorist organization. in addition, isis was able to bring in tens of thousands, approximately 40,000, foreign fighters from what we were told were 100 different countries around the world. so the scope of what he built and what the organization built was like nothing we had seen before. and that is the reason that he was -- that he became the world's most hunted terrorist. yes, there were a lot of people that would have wanted vengeance. but i have to caution that i myself through my own sources have not been able to confirm the account of general mazloum, who is the head of the syrian democratic forces. i have instead interviewed two senior aides to baghdadi. these are people that were quite close to him. they are now in prison in iraq's
counterterrorism jail. and they explained to me that in order to see baghdadi, they were stripped of all of their electronics, their watches, their -- their -- their cameras, their phones. and they were taken in a car, blindfolded, driven around for hours, taken to one location, then another location, then a third location before baghdadi would show up. and when he showed up, they would see him for, at most, 15, 20, 30 minutes. this is the kind of security procedure that he was known to have implemented because of how unsafe he felt. if this informant really did manage to penetrate baghdadi's lair to this extent, it suggests to me that he had really dropped his security precautions. and i'm not sure that that -- that that jives with what we know of this man who was hunted, not just by the united states but by the intelligence services of several other countries. >> yes, and just by the united states had a $25 million bounty
on his head. so, ann, whoever ultimately provided this intelligence that led the united states too be ae to have this raid, who steps in to fill the void? is this a big blow to isis operationally? or just is it -- is it a blow to them in terms of messaging? what's the reality? what -- what will this -- how will this affect its operations? >> the expert on impact isis on the ground. she's the best in the world. in terms of the geo politics of the region, though, let's be very clear. the united states has been a comparatively marginal actor in syria. that was true under obama. it's a little bit even more true now under trump. the reason why the russians were able to call the shots, quite literally both in terms of cyberidentification, disruption, as well as from the air, on the ground, is because they're the ones with the national interest. the obama administration spent a lot of time thinking about it. whether or not they wanted to implement a no-fly zone. they decided not to.
whether or not they wanted to uphold the red line. they decided not to. trump wants to pull the troops out but the number of troops were comparatively small. that will now be more true because the kurds have been jettisoned as the ally that had been working with the united states to fight isis. certainly, that fight will be undermined because the americans have made that decision. but at the end of the day, we're not talking about genocide against the kurds and we're not talking about a fight against russia. we're talking about assad, the russians, and the iranians to a lesser degree, consolidating more territory on the ground in syria. that's where we were and still where we are. >> so in our last minute, who does step in to fill the void? how big a blow is this to isis? >> i think it is a significant blow to isis. i want to -- i want to caution that by saying that of course this is a group that has now lost its -- its third leader. and it has always been able to pick itself up and keep going. but baghdadi was unique. not just in the fact that he was the leader of this group.
he was also the person that, according to the rich world that isis created, he was the person to whom attackers pledged a vow of allegiance. by video, by audio tape, by facebook posts, by written messages before they set out and carried out murder in capitals around the world. that was the case with the paris attacks. that was the case with omar matine in the orlando nightclub. he called 911 to pledge allegiance to baghdadi. so that ritual created kind of i think a cultive personality around baghdadi that might be hard to replace. >> wish we had more time to talk about this. i really recommend mini's article in "the new york times." always, ann bremer, we thank you for your time and expertise. up next, breaking news for capitol hill. the house getting ready to announce next steps in the impeachment inquiry. we have brand new details and we'll have them for you next. de we'll have them for you next is that net carbs or total?
eh, not enough fiber. chocolate would be good. snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress. seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. gimme two minutes. eligible for medicare. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in.
this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask... for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy...
and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide.
week. it will outline next steps in the impeachment inquiry. and for what else it will include, let me go to capitol hill and msnbc's garrett haake. what are we hearing from pelosi? >> i just got a copy of a letter nancy pelosi sent to her members about this resolution. first, what it is not. this is not a resolution authorizing the opening of an impeachment inquiry. pelosi and the democrats have long said they do not need to do that. they were backed up by the courts on that. and so this is a resolution that will lay out, in many cases, the next steps that democrats will take. i want to read to you a little bit directly from this letter. pelosi writes this resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the american people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the judiciary committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment. and sets forth due process rights for the president and his council. so let's review that. this would allow the deposition transcripts, all these closed-door depositions, nine of
them we're up to now, more than 70 hours, this would authorize the release of those transcripts. this creates a procedure by which all of the investigative evidence being gathered by the intel oversight and foreign relations committees could be transferred to judiciary so that they could begin laying out the actual articles. presumably, in public hearings. and it does something that republicans have long asked for. it will lay out specific due process rights for the president, including perhaps access for presidential council to be at any of these hearings that go forward. she mentions the president's counsel in this letter specifically. pelosi concludes her letter by saying she hopes that this resolution, which democrats expect to vote on thursday, will remove any lingering doubt or any ability by the white house to stonewall, foot drag, or otherwise argue that this inquiry is illegitimate. by taking this vote on thursday, they will move to the next steps. what is not in this letter is any specific word on the timing of when those open hearings might happen or when we might
see those depositions, for example. i and a number of other reporters just chased intel chairman adam schiff down the hallway here hoping he would give us a little more information. he said that could be forthcoming later. but for folks following this very closely, we expect to see the text of this resolution tomorrow. a mark up on wednesday and then a house floor vote on thursday. at least, that's the plans as i stand here right now. >> let me give you what i wonder is going on here. so one of the things that the democrats have argued throughout this, as you well know, garrett, is the reason this is behind closed doors is they were being criticized by the republicans is you want to get clean testimony from everyone. you don't want them to have a chance to compare notes. to essentially adjust their testimony based on what other people are saying. would it be fair to extrapolate then that if they're going to release these, they have essentially the information they need, at least the outline of the case that they're going to bring if and when they bring
articles of impeachment. and so they feel confident enough, number one, to release these. they're not worried about whether or not people are going to compare notes or it's going to be detrimental to their investigation. and does it indicate that their timing is, at the very least, consistent with what they've been saying that they want to get these hearings going sometime next month? >> right. well, with the caveat that we don't know what timetable they will set in this resolution and the house is actually out next week. so you don't expect to see open hearings begin next week. it would presumably be the week after that at the soonest that they could start this. but, yes, you have to think that this means house investigative committees, the three that have been doing the majority of the labor here feel like they have enough to start going forward. i think there are five more depositions that we know about already scheduled for this week. there are a number of outstanding subpoenas for document requests that have not yet been fulfilled. and there are a couple of other witnesses that we expect the democrats are interested in.
for example, john bolton who's not been formally invited or subpoenaed to come testify. but whose name has been -- about quite a bit who might still be called. but yes, i think your overall point is correct. democrats, at some point, you're taking a tradeoff here between how much more information do you need and when does it become unhelpful to drag out the timeline further? and i think what you're seeing here as democrats start to feel like perhaps it's time to make a move and take advantage of public opinion and the end of the calendar year coming up. and start to move this thing forward. and perhaps be willing to risk leaving other depositions, other pieces of information on the table. >> garrett haake, thank you for bringing that breaking news to us. i want to bring in susan who is an msnbc analyst. republican strategist. columnist. wears many hats. but let's talk, if we can, about this as a strategic move if indeed it is a signal that democrats are starting to feel it's unhelpful to drag this out any longer. the time has come to get this in
front of the american people or at least tell them we're going to have this in front of you within a matter of weeks. is that the right strategy? >> well, i think that we're at the point at this time, the democrats had to show something for all of these hearings. there was enough -- not leaks coming out but commentary about testimony from within the democrats, people were getting frustrated. when do we get to see it? so it's smart because i think they need to move quickly. >> because the republicans were saying, listen, what we're hearing from these depositions that you say support impeachment, you are selectively choosing. that was their argument. >> and i would argue itse was b on both sides of the aisle to be commenting at all. i was just as disappointed when i saw democrating coming out and saying, well, i can't talk about it but, boy, that was some damning testimony. that was inappropriate too. i understand the process it was going through and that's fine. but now, the frustration starts to lay down. now, what i'm particularly curious about is the timing of all of this because they're
going to have the resolution, as garrett said, on thursday. then the house goes on break for a week. that leaves all -- >> that doesn't mean the staffs are going to go on break or they won't get this stuff going. >> it says -- this gives the president a week to talk about process, process, process. and the thing that they are leaving on friday with is a process story. so it's a little peculiar. >> but i wonder because the -- the major argument that the republicans have made is a process story. and if you believe the polls, the president doesn't, but if you believe the polls, in spite of those arguments that the republicans have been making, the polls have been moving steadily in favor of impeachment. >> i agree. but without any testimony being happening for a week, that -- and just hearing one side -- and hearing the process story, we don't know what will happen. it seems to me that a decision will have to be made next week when to start these public hearings, which at the earliest will be november 11th. i think that is the date that they really should start and put it out there. the american public needs some
time to digest this. into matter what they say, they are on a timeline. and it's a very simple -- i mean, assuming that they're going to go with, you know, one or two articles of impeachment, it's that the president sought to get aid from a foreign country for his -- for his political purposes. >> for his own personal gain. >> for his own personal gain and held off $400 million in necessary security funding for ukraine as the -- as the carrot, if you will. >> so if you're a republican on the hill now and we've already had reporting about how frustrated they are that they -- they basically have to answer every time the president says something. "the washington post" says that the gop strategy is being directed almost entirely by the frenzied impulses of trump. so do you plan anything? do you discuss anything? do you -- how do you even approach this? >> it's very difficult. republicans don't know what to do because they never know what the president is going to say next. let's not forget just waiting
for a helicopter, the president said to china, hey, if you've got information on joe biden, i'll take it. you just never know what comes out of this president's mouth. and they don't want to get caught, not just trying to defend the current problem that the administration has but a brand new one and getting their feet caught in cement i think is what the article -- >> and i think to that point, you know, the former white house chief of staff john kelly who gave an interview to the washington examiner said he regretted his decision to resign because he feels as if he was still at the white house, the president wouldn't be in this predicament. i don't know. >> i don't know. i mean, maybe he thinks he still had something to offer to the country in that role. but i don't see -- i don't see that happening. >> but in terms of quashing the president's impulses, no one has really been successful at doing that. so what are you looking for when this ultimately happens? what are going to be the keys do you think to making this case to the american people? and conversely, for the republicans who, by the way, part of their argument has been, well, the democrats are in there
directing this. republicans and their lawyers were in there questioning all nine witnesses just as the democrats were. but now, we're going to see it in public. do you go after someone who is, let's say, a decorated war hero? someone who has been, for example, in the service of the country for decades as a career state department officer? what is your strategy? >> well, i think -- >> in public. >> in public, i think the first thing democrats have to do is use a professional staff. i think seeing this five-minute rule of the questions going back and forth and members of the house on both sides trying to make a name for themselves before asking their question is just going to look juvenile. they have to -- >> but if you're a republican, can you do character assassination? >> i mean, if you -- if you're referring to someone with a military record like ambassador taylor, i don't think so. i mean, you look at his record. here's the thing about the people who have been testifying in the last couple of weeks. they are all public servants. they have not served any
particular administration on a political bench. they have simply been serving their country, which is why their testimony is so damning from what we hear. the exception to that is ambassador sondland who was a political appointee and he -- it was interesting how he came forward on his own. but that's really the exception of those who are not political folks. >> susan delpercio, thank you for being with us. once again, there is a resolution that is going to come before the house on thursday nancy pelosi says it will set the procedure for hearings that are open to the american public. coming up, she was seen by many as a rising star in the democratic party but after less than a year in congress, last night freshman congress woman katy hill announced her resignation after the launch of an ethics investigation into allegations she had relationships with congressional and campaign staffers. but up next, the kincade fire in california sonoma county. wine country. it's almost doubled in size in just a day. fueled by hurricane force winds.
sarah harmon is there for us. >> hey, chris. we're here at a historic property in sonoma county. we're going to show you some of the devastation from these fast-moving wildfires up close. cologuard: colon cancer screening for people 50 and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade,
whose tech helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,
or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out.
here's what the people in northern california are facing. these horrifying images show just part of the kincade fire. it nearly doubled in size yesterday. and now stretches across more than 66,000 acres. a firefighter in sonoma county shot this video. you can see the flames fuelled by those hurricane-force winds and extremely dry air literally closing in on him. they encircled him, but he did survive. much of it is in sonoma's wine country. here's that little bit that remains of soda rock winery. it's north of santa rosa. it's an historic property founded in 1869. and by the way that is not the only winery to go up in flames. nbc's sarah harmon joins me now at that historic property in sonoma county. sarah, tell us a little bit more about where you are and how people there in northern california are dealing with all of this. >> reporter: hey, chris. yeah. we are at the soda rock winery
or at least what's left of it. let me show you a little bit about what we are dealing with here. this stone wall is all that remains of soda rock, a property that's 150 years old. the entire winery reduced to ash and rubble when that fast-moving fire blazed through. the man who owned this winery had bought it 20 years ago. he had spent a decade restoring it, chris. >> it was a derelict historical property. he poured his heart and soul into it. it had only been open for about nine years when it burned to the ground over the weekend. you can imagine how simply devastating that was for him and for the entire community. it's a region that loves wine. and this was a symbolic property, chris. >> tell me a little bit about some of the people you have been talking with. i can't imagine this has been anything shy of heroing. >> reporter: you know, the people that we have been talking to, chris, they have really been traumatized twice, once by having to evacuate and then a
lot of them by what they find when they get to those evacuation centers. many of them are at capacity. we went to one of the red cross facilities yesterday. all of their cots were full. we were talking to people who were sleeping in their cars or in tents. we talked to mothers with kids sleeping in their cars. we talked to some teenagers who were camped out in a pickup truck. they told me they don't know when they are going to have a bed again because those evak wass are still in place and they just can't afford a hotel. thank you so much, sarah harman, and you take care. meantime back in washington a battle, well, actually there in california a battle is already shaping up to replace katie hill. she's the freshman congresswoman from southern california who's resigning over an alleged sexual relationship with a staffer. hill had already admitted a consensual but what she called inappropriate relationship with someone on her campaign staff. but she's denied the allegation at the center of the house ethics committee investigation
that she had a relationship with a member of her congressional staff. her resignation is the first since the house enacted a new rule last year banning sexual relationships with staffers inspired by the me too movement. hill who was 32 years old released a video to her supporters today calling for a fight against what she says she experienced, revenge porn by her estranged husband. >> i'm hurt. i'm angry. the path that i saw so clearly for myself is no longer there. i've had moments where i've wondered what the last three years of my life were for, and if it was worth it. i know that many of you feel the same. i never claimed to be perfect, but i never thought my imperfections would be weaponized and used to try to destroy me and the community i have loved for my entire life. for that i am so incredibly sorry. >> nbc news has reached out to hill's estranged husband for comment. he has not responded. joining me now "washington post" political reporter amber phillips who has written about
this. this is -- i think you can't almost overstate it, a stunning reversal of fortunes for someone who is so young. she flipped a red seat blue. she was on the fast track in democratic leadership. so you asked the key question in your story today if she didn't do what the ethics committee is investigating, why resign? >> yeah. we still don't have an answer even after she released that video you just showed a part of this afternoon. in fact, she almost sounds in that video like she regrets resigning. she is framing herself as a victim as you said of revenge pornography. and so she is not giving an apology for an inappropriate relationship. she is not even acknowledging this ethics investigation when she's denied having a relationship with a staffer, which would be against house rules. instead she is saying, listen, all this stuff is so salacious that i would just be a distraction to this impeachment inquiry and a bunch of other stuff democrats want to do.
so regretfully i bow out. we don't still have a clear answer why she is gone. >> there is the revenge porn aspect. the photos are graphic. the story itself is salacious. nancy pelosi quickly released a statement. she has acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a member untenable. how much of this do you think is "me too" is parity showing women will be held to the same standard as men and so was pressured you have to step down. she's in what was at least a competitive district that she actually won pretty handily but might not win handily as a weakened "kasie dc." do we have a sense of the dynamics around her and her decision? >> yeah. well, i think there are two dueling dynamics. one is nancy pelosi driven. i don't have any additional reporting besides the statement you just read. but it's pretty telling. nancy pelosi essentially says you broke the rules, you're out, and democrats need to show that
we can govern without these kind of distractions. we can't be the same as republicans. i will pause to paint out that both democrats and republicans have been felt by the me too movement almost in equal measure. but nancy pelosi wants no part of that right now at this moment. then you have katie hill who sounds like she doesn't want to resign. her campaign account spent all day re-tweeting people who are supportive of her and said she was really a victim of being a woman and thus being more vulnerable to these kinds of photos terrorizing her and her career. >> and this is a political story. steve knight who she beat the incumbent told the local newspaper that he absolutely might try to win back his old seat and is going to make a decision quickly. and that's going to wrap up this hour for me. i'm chris jansing. ali velshi will be back in this chair tomorrow 3:00 p.m. eastern. so thanks so much for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. ♪ hi, everyone.
it's 4:00 in new york. and there's breaking news in the impeachment inquiry just in the last hour. democrats now preparing for house vote on a resolution that will set up the next public phase of the impeachment inquiry, a vote that's expected this thursday. that news comes as the white house continues to argue that the inquiry lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. and follows last week's theatrics on capitol hill from republicans clamoring for more transparency. house speaker nancy pelosi announcing the vote in a statement addressing the trump administration's stonewalling campaign directly. she writes this. quote, we are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the trump administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas or continue obstructing the house of representatives. the announcement comes at a consequential moment in the impeachment inquiry, one that may ultimately determine whether