tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC October 28, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
counsel, the first u.s. official to be testifying. he will be doing so in defiance of a white house that is telling him not to show up. it's going to be a big day tomorrow. we'll see you again tomorrow night. now it's time for "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." >> i have the same opening statement in my hands we've been studying while you've been on the air. and it reads like, tip of the iceberg, when you consider how much this colonel was exposed to in the white house. it's a remarkably short and effective opening statement, but there's a lot between the lines here. >> yeah, and it's five or six pages, from the colonel, but he's listening in on the call, he's the subject matter expert, he's a military veteran and a national security lifer. he's interacting not directly with the president on this, but interacting directly with everybody who the president has tasked with doing this thing. and it sounds like he couldn't stomach it. >> it will be fascinating to see
what the republicans have to say about this witness tomorrow. >> yeah, this purple heart wounded lifelong military veteran, exactly. thanks, lawrence. >> thank you, rachel. >> well, what is the difference between "lock her up" and "lock him up"? i will give you my answer to that question that has been burning up twitter for the last 24 hours, after baseball fans at last night's world series game chanted "lock him up" when president trump appeared at the game, apparently thinking everyone there would be thrilled to see him. at the end of this hour, we will show you that video and answer that question, what is the difference? and that video will probably be the last time that donald trump ever appears before a crowd that he cannot control. we begin tonight, of course, with the breaking news about the testimony of lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, who will testify in a closed-door deposition tomorrow in the impeachment investigation of donald trump. nbc news has obtained a copy of colonel vindman's opening statement tomorrow, in which he
explains that he was listening to donald trump's phone call with the president of ukraine. he says, "i was concerned by the call. i did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and i was worried about the implications for the u.s. government's support of ukraine. following the call, i again reported my concerns to nsc's lead counsel," that would be john eisenberg. colonel vindman stresses that he personally has had no direct contact or communication with president trump. and he also says he is not the whistleblower. he says, "i want the committees to know i am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the cia and the committees' attention. i do not know who the whistleblower is and i would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower."
colonel vindman begins his opening statement with some basic biographical information. he says, "i have dedicated my entire professional life to the united states of america. for more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the united states army. as an infantry officer, i served multiple overseas tours, including south korea and germany, and a deployment to iraq for combat operations in iraq. i was wounded in an ied attack and awarded a purple heart. since 2008, i have been a foreign area officer, specializing in eurasia. in this role, i have served in the united states' embassies in kiev, ukraine, and moscow, russia. in july 2018, i was asked to serve at the national security council. i sit here as a lieutenant colonel in the united states army, an immigrant. my family fled the soviet union when i was 3 1/2 years old. upon arriving in new york city in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning english at night. he stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. i have a deep appreciation for american values and ideals and the power of freedom.
i am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics." leading out of our breaking news discussion tonight from kiev, ukraine, is nbc news reporter, josh letterman, national reporter for nbc news. also joining us, former ambassador to russia, michael mcfaul, who knows lieutenant colonel vindman. evelyn farkas. former deputy secretary of defense in the obama administration. and jonathan alter is with us, a columnist for the daily beast. ambassador mcfaul, let me start with you. what should we know about lieutenant colonel alexander vindman? >> well, we served together in moscow. when i was the ambassador, he was part of the military attache there. you read a lot of it already. and i was always struck, as i always am, the people that go to serve overseas in those embassies, especially the military attaches -- actually, not especially -- all of them. they're the best and the brightest, the people that are
the most committed to the cause. kernel vindman had another piece of his biography as you read that he is an immigrant from that part of the world. and in my experience working in the government, there's something about the immigrants that join the u.s. government and serve and serve in the military. they are even more committed to the cause. you know, he's a lawyer patriot. i have no idea if he's a democrat or a republican. and there would be no reason that that would ever come up. and another thing. i also worked at the white house, i want to underscore. i was senior director there for three years. and i had people like colonel vindman that worked for me. remember, they're also the best and the brightest that get detailed to work at the national security council. he is definitely one of those people. >> josh letterman, in ukraine tonight, we were going to lead this hour with your reporting from ukraine, which reveals that the white house -- people in the white house, in john bolton's
arena of the white house, knew about the pressure that rudy giuliani was putting on ukraine earlier than we thought, in may. how is colonel vindman's statement tonight linking up with your reporting? >> reporter: i got to tell you something that really jumped out to me in reading that statement tonight, lawrence, was the fact that he says that he began to understand as early as the spring that what he describes as outside influencers were getting involved in ukraine policy in a way that was contrary to u.s. national security interests. that links up very well with what we are reporting at nbc news tonight, which is that as early as mid-may, long before had previously been known, fiona hill, a top official at the white house had been notified that president zelensky just barely taking office as the new president here in ukraine, was concerned and rattled by this pressure campaign from rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland. so we're getting a much bigger and broader picture, consistent from multiple people who are
coming forward, describing a pressure campaign that started early and that was clear to the ukrainians that they were going to have to do what rudy giuliani wanted if they were going to have the type of relationship with the united states that they would be seeking. >> evelyn farkas, colonel vindman says he's not the whistleblower, doesn't know who the whistleblower people who shared his concerns about this situation with the person who turned out to decide to become the whistleblower. >> it sounds highly likely, lawrence, because he is describing exactly what happened -- he describes that he heard the phone call, he was alarmed, he spoke to people about his alarm, he likely spoke to the whistleblower. he probably has a sense of who the whistleblower is, but he doesn't want to put that person in jeopardy by revealing anything about them. but he expressed his consternation. it's a small group of people. these are all experts who work very hard, you know, as ambassador mcfall just said.
they work very hard to help the relationship between the united states and ukraine. and in the case of ukraine, because it's so pivotal to standing up against russia, we focus really and put a lot of heart in it, even if you're not ukrainian american, but of course, that was a special element that he had. you know, the other thing about him, i think, as a military officer, he stresses over and over again, this duty that he has to speak out and report up the chain, if he sees something awry. and it's something that we don't drill into civilians regularly. but in the military, you're not really required or you're not expected to resign, you're expected to follow orders, but you're also expected to speak out and elevate concerns up the chain. >> jonathan alter, it seems like every other day, there is a new name, a new name who suddenly becomes the most important name so far. and colonel vindman is the first person to testify who heard the phone call. >> absolutely.
and you know, history is going to look back on this as part of what i call the patriotic surge. it's now no longer, you know, just one or two ambassadors. you now have more than half a dozen patriotic americans coming forward, doing their constitutional duty. these are our heros now and i think they will be seen as such when the history of impeachment is written. and in this case, you have somebody who was not only on the call, but was in the military, you know. ambassador taylor was in vietnam. he was in iraq and he got a purple heart, vindman did, after being wounded in iraq. it's going to be very hard for donald trump to rip him apart when he testifies in public which is coming if not next week then the week after. >> and ambassador taylor did testify to some things that were
direct evidence, things that he -- conversation that he participated in. but a certain amount of his testimony was hearsay. a certain amount of most of the whistleblower's complaint is what you would call hearsay. many republicans like lindsey graham have been dismissing that kind of evidence as hearsay. but colonel vindman is not a hearsay witness. he literally was on the phone call, and he also had his own direct conversations with gordon sondland. i want to emphasize this passage because gordon sondland is now the person in most jeopardy in terms of what's happening in the investigation so far. he is the one person who may be close to a perjury charge. and colonel vindman's opening statement says, ambassador sondland started to speak about ukraine, delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president, at which time ambassador bolton cut the meeting short. that was a meeting with ukrainian officials. following this meeting, there
was a scheduled debriefing during which ambassador sondland emphasized the importance that ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the bidens and burisma. i stated to ambassador sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the nsc was going to get involved in or pushed. dr. fiona hill then entered the room and asserted to ambassador sondland that his statements were inappropriate. following the debriefing meeting, i reported my concerns to the nsc's lead counsel. dr. hill also reported the incident to the nsc's lead counsel. and ambassador mcfall, this is the kind of scene that i'm sure does not surprise you at all, except for the sondland part. but the part where the professionals stand up to this, in effect, tourist ambassador, this rich guy who bought his
ambassadorship based on no experience whatsoever, that's what you would expect them to do with an amateur like that. >> yeah, well, normally, professionals like colonel vindman would never even interact with those kind of ambassadors. remember, sondland had nothing to do with ukraine policy. he bought his position to be the ambassador to the european union. and remember, at the time, when he's working at the nsc, his job is to be the point person for the entire government at his level for ukraine, right? so he is reporting to fiona -- f fiona hill who is the senior director. he's the director for ukraine. so he has primary responsibility for coordinating the entire policy. and that's why he's so upset when he sees this, as his boss called it, drug deal happening in parallel. and what you read, lawrence, that sounds like a patriot to me. there is going to be -- i think -- i challenge anybody to go after colonel wivindman the y they did with ambassador taylor when they called him some radical unelected bureaucrat.
this sounds like a patriot to me as is ambassador taylor, someone i also know. >> and because he's also an immigrant, we can expect donald trump to accuse him of being bias, in favor of ukraine. and josh letterman, colonel w d vindman is very well known in ukraine. he speaks the language. he is someone who has his own real experience there. and he's someone who i assume the government and ukraine has dealt with extensively. >> reporter: that's right. so he was a foreign area expert, which means that even though he served in some different capacities, he's currently detailed to the national security council. he's been focused on this region for quite a while. he had served here in kiev as well as other parts of the broader region. so he was well known to people here. had a level of trust. they knew who he was and what he stood for. the fact that he was someone who also had ancestry here. and he is someone that has added
credibility as a result of the fact that he's a real expert in his area, not someone as you mentioned like ambassador sondland who kind of came in and seemed to be acting out of political purposes instead of a well versed knowledge of national security interest with had it comes to ukraine and the broader region. >> evelyn farkas, the national security counsel's lawyer is now is a very sharp focus of this investigation. whenever something like this happens, the professionals immediately report it to the nsc's counsel. >> right. and so now the question is, what did that counsel do with the information, and what was the conversation like between ambassador bolton, the national security adviser, and the lawyer for the national security counsel? there are a lot of questions about what the lawyer's involvement was in basically taking phone transcripts and putting them on to the very secret computers which you've talked about in other programs. this lawyer is also potentially, i would say, in some jeopardy. so he can join ambassador sondland in that arena.
but certainly, sondland, of course, is in a bit of trouble, because it looks like he may have misled congress when he went up to testify. >> and jonathan alter, to stress to the audience, since the republicans have been lying about this, tomorrow's deposition is -- there's 48 republican members of the house who have a right to be in that deposition, listen to ever word, and ask every question they might want to ask of colonel vindman. there are republican staff members in that room. >> right. >> and so this is their chance to talk -- their first chance to talk to someone who actually listened to the trump phone call. >> and i don't think they're going to do anything to knock him down. there's no indication that the republicans have laid a glove on any of these other people being deposed. they know that their president is in a pickle. and what eventually a lot of them are going to do is just say, well, this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. they're not even going to try to
contest the facts, which are now very clear. the problem with the argument that is emerging, that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, is that it has now become a national security issue. and this is one of the things that colonel vindman does, is he links up why this is related to our national security. and the reason is, the reason that ukraine did not want to be put in this position is that if their aid was politicized, if it became a democrat versus republican thing, because, say, the democrats thought, well, you know, ukraine is investigating joe biden on a bogus charge, then it would be less likely that they would get aid in the future. less likely that they would be able to defend themselves against russia. that is very much in our national security interest. that's why we're giving them $400 million, is that this is a national security issue for us, and this has now become enmeshed in this case. >> we're joined now by a member of the house intelligence
committee and house judiciary committee, democratic congressman, eric swalwell. congressman swalwell, i want to get your reaction to colonel vindman's opening statement. it has been made public and i know it's going to be something he delivers in the closed-door deposition tomorrow. but it is now a public statement. and this will be the first witness who you will have, who actually listened to the president's phone call. >> good evening, lawrence. i very much look forward tomorrow morning to thanking lieutenant colonel vindman for his service to our country. this soviet-born immigrant, this wounded warrior, this patriot who i have not seen officially the opening statement, but from what i have read, which has been released, of course based on his service to our country, he would be concerned about what he heard and of course he would follow the proper chain of command. he did not leak out to the press. he went through the chain of command, through the national
secure counsel council lawyers expressing his concerns. and it really will be people like him who have come forward, who have followed lawful subpoenas, done their duty, that will aid our investigation, people like ambassador yuvanovich. people like ambassadors mckinley and taylor who have provided so much color to this. and to my republican colleagues who have heard this testimony, if they have sat through it, i ask, can you hear them now and will you hear them now? >> and congressman, this is your first opportunity to question someone who actually listened to the phone call. this means it's the first opportunity to check the voracity of the rough transcript of that phone call released by the white house. that so-called transcript has ellipses in it of a few times. is that something that someone will zero in on and ask him, does he recall if there were any additional words spoken, especially in those spaces that are just represented by a dot, dot, dot?
>> of course, lawrence. that will be a part of our investigation as well as understanding who else was on the call. did anyone else express concern. but lawrence, frankly, if there was nothing else, you know, to the dot, dot, dots, as you referenced, it's a gross abuse of power. and if all president trump did was ask the ukrainian president to help him investigate the bidens, that would be a gross abuse of power. but he didn't just do that, he leveraged a white house meeting and he didn't just do that. he also leveraged $391 million of your taxpayer dollars. that is what we're investigating and i very much look forward to hearing from the lieutenant colonel tomorrow. >> there seems to be a conflict in colonel vindman's testimony and ambassador sondland's testimony. there seems to be a very sharp conflict between ambassador bill taylor's testimony and gordon sondland's testimony. one member of the committee who listened to these testimonies
said on this program that he believes that gordon sondland could easily face perjury charges the way this investigation is going. is gordon sondland in more trouble tonight as a result of colonel vindman's testimony? >> i'm going to reserve judgment on that. i'm going to wait until i hear from all the witnesses. but i will say, ambassador taylor, whose testimony was in sharp conflict, at least the opening statement that was released with ambassador sondland, he had a deep recall that was backed up by meticulous notes that he took. and that is in sharp conflict with ambassador sondland. now, ambassador sondland was at the committee today, reviewing his testimony with his lawyer, and of course, has an opportunity, you know, to review that testimony. i'll wait to see what he does with it. but people like fiona hill, also as you saw in her testimony, have corroborated what ambassador taylor and others have said. and it seems to be that the arrows continue to point toward a shakedown ordered by this
president, two sharp lines to rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland, to have the ukrainians at the president's direction investigate his political opponents in exchange for a white house meeting and security assistance. >> congressman swalwell, let me go over that offer. they can have an opportunity to review their testimony. what is the point of that review and is that a situation in which someone like gordon sondland can look at some of his answers and say having thought it over, i actually think the correct answer is something else? and is that a moment you want to think very seriously about possible perjury if you're gordon sondland? >> well, i hope he thought about that before he testified, lawrence. but it's not an opportunity to change the answer. it's really to make sure that the court reporter, the
stenographer, accurately, you know, was able to capture your words. it's for technical changes or to clarify where something may be unintelligible. there's other ways for him to clear up his testimony if he wanted to do that, but it's not to change what the stenographer has taken down. and i just want your viewers to know, lawrence, that it's not just the ambassador who's able to review those transcripts. every member on the republican side, up to about 50 of them, are able to also review those transcripts and participate in these hearings, despite all of the attacks they've made on their lack of access. >> ambassador mcfall, if you could suggest a question to colonel vindman tomorrow, what would you suggest the committee, knowing what his job is and knowing the kinds of information he has access to, what would you suggest the committee should zero in on with colonel vindman tomorrow? >> on the small part, again, i don't know how the trump national security council works, but when i worked at the national security council, it
would be something like a director, the level that he was at that would review those transcripts that you were talking about, right? so he would know if that was the transcript or not. but the big question, and i think that's really revealing about what he said so far is the timeline here. as you were talking about earlier, that i think what this testimony suggests is that the phone call was just one act, was just one play, if you will, in a long, multiple month, many, many different iterations with the ukrainians. and i want to know when he knew the other things that happened before that phone call. and secondly, i would ask him about the first phone call. we haven't talked much about the that phone call, but there was allegedly a congratulatory phone call to president zelenski earlier in the year. was he on that phone call and could he testify to that phone
call as well? >> and josh letterman, that takes you back to your reporting. you've done important work on the timeline reporting today. and it seems that colonel vindman's testimony is lining up with your timeline. >> reporter: that's right. we're learning more from this new reporting about how early these alarm bells were going off inside the national security council's, really at the top level with john bolton, the former national security adviser being briefed by fiona hill, after meeting with zelenski and his advisers as they were preparing to take office. this is the period in between when zelensky was elected and he was inaugurated. and he was already feeling the pressure from giuliani, to change up the board of nafta gas. fiona hill was told about the involvement of fruman and parnas, those two florida businessmen who were also trying to dig up dirt on the vice president's son and have also now been indicted for alleged campaign finance violations. and fiona hill at the white house was also told in may about gordon sondland making
unsolicited overchurs to president zelenski about who he should put into key influential positions in his new administration with the ukrainians feeling before he'd even been sworn in that that was inappropriate and making sure that gets to the white house. >> evelyn farkas, one thing that happens, we've discovered, in these depositions is that new names come up and new people get discovered in this story. colonel vindman was mention ed in some of the earlier depositions and that's where we learned about him. so that's one of the possibilities that could emerge in colonel vindman's testimony tomorrow. but what would you focus on, if you could be in that room tomorrow with colonel vindman's testimony? >> i would be interested whether he knows anything about how all of this started because the strands of these stories, there's first of all the president trying to get the dirt on biden and his son and basically to use it for his own political purposes. and then there are these guys trying to make business deals and basically trying to take the
reformed ukrainian natural gas industry. it was like the one place where we had success and it wasn't corrupt anymore. and they're trying to dirty it up again. who actually directed giuliani and these guys? who put the idea in their heads to start with ukraine? i mean, they could have tried to get dirt on vice president biden and his son elsewhere. and again, i believe that as nancy pelosi put it, speaker pelosi put it, all roads lead back to the kremlin. i think there were people who were whispering in the ears of these affiliates of giuliani's or others. certainly, we know the guy who's in jail and we're trying to get him extradited to the united states who was providing the funding. he's a pro-russian guy. all the guys they were dealing with in the ukraine. these guys had an axe to grind with the united states. they were pro-russian. there's a game being played here that unfortunately i think moscow is a little too heavily involved in. so, again, all roads go back to the kremlin and this is not good for the ukraine or the united
states. >> we're going to have to squeeze in a break here. congressman swalwell, please stay with us so we can talk about the impeachment resolution this week. we will be right back. you can never seem to get anywhere. that's why dell technologies created unified workspace, powered by vmware. ♪ a revolutionary solution that lets you deploy, manage, support and secure all your devices from the cloud. so you can stop going in circles, and start moving forward.
we will get our first look at the resolution nancy pelosi told the house of representatives that will be introduced this week. we'll get the first look at that on wednesday, when the chairman of the rules committee, jim mcgovern, brings it to a vote in the rules committee before a full vote on the house floor on thursday. in a letter to democratic
members of the house, speaker pelosi said this about the resolution. she said, 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 counsel. 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. congressman eric swalwell is back with us. congressman, this resolution will be a very clear set of guidelines about how the impeachment investigation proceeds from here. but is it also a political response to republicans trying to delegitimize what's been happening in the house because there has not been a vote of the
full house on impeachment? >> it's not, lawrence. it just so happens that it also is that. but i think the speaker is giving the president the due process that he would never give anyone himself. and it would have been premature to have done this last month, when we just launched this investigation. at that point, we weren't quite sure if it would be necessary to proceed to full public hearings. if there was nothing there, if we saw evidence that would exonerate the president, we would be able to just wrap up this investigation and say it doesn't warrant going further. we have seen evidence that is quite alarming. and this will move to a public phase. and as it moves to a public phase, we will want to make sure that the investigative depositions are released. that there's a process for the minority to be a part of the public hearings, that there's a process for the president and his counsel to have some role in the public hearings and for
staff, as well, to play a role in the questioning. to do that, you'll have to have the vote that we have on thursday. but, yes, you're right. it also answers the question that the president poses. why haven't we formalized this with a vote? we'll formalize it with a vote and we'll see what he does next. >> and you have that federal judge rule that you don't have to have any kind of vote by the house of representatives. judge howell ruled, even in cases of presidential impeachment, a house resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry. and so you've actually managed to have that legally established in court. was the speaker waiting for that formal adjudication in court as in effect proof that this is not necessary so that going forward with the resolution now does not appear to be a necessary step? >> i don't want to speak for her. i know that she wants to make this process as fair as possible but to also move expeditiously. and as i said, the fact that we're starting to lay up what the procedures would be for an
open hearing signals that we're going to be moving toward that phase so that we can illuminate for the public just what the president did in this shakedown and give the republicans an opportunity to question the witnesses. i will say, lawrence, i hope that they finally come to grips with what is alleged here. bring seriousness that they have not yet brung -- brought to this investigation but also realize that unlike in our court system where defendants are often assigned a public defender and that public defenders play an important role, the republicans are not the president's public defender. they don't have to just defend him at all costs. they can actually play a constructive role in finding out just what happened. >> it seems a bit optimistic for the speaker to say that this will eliminate any doubt that the white house has to comply with your subpoenas. of course, the white house will continue to play the game the way they've been playing it. the incentive for the white house has not changed because of
this resolution in terms of complying with subpoenas. >> as we get ready for the charlie brown, halloween, and thanksgiving and christmas specials, lawrence, we expect this to be lucy with the football, that we don't truly expect president trump to comply and cooperate. we expect he'll continue to just lift up the football and have some new terms. but we're not going to chase him into court. we have his confession co-signed by mick mulvaney and a lot of corroborating evidence. if they want to participate, we expect they will. if they don't have that, they will obstruct only because they have a consciousness of guilt. and we'll consider that as an article of obstruction of justice. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. >> of course. my pleasure, lawrence. >> appreciate it. >> when we come back, why some pentagon officials have been reporting that the death of al baghdadi occurred, their terms, largely in spite of and not
itso chantix can help you quitd slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions.
decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. "the new york times" is reporting that president trump's abrupt decision to withdraw troops from syria affected the already-existing plans for the raid on isis leader abu bakr al baghdadi. according to intelligence, military, and counterterrorism officials, mr. trump's abrupt withdrawal order three weeks ago disrupted the meticulous planning underway and forced pentagon officials to speed up
the plan for the risky night raid before their ability to control troops, spies, and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared with the pull out, the official said. mr. al baghdadi's death in the raid on saturday, they said, occurred largely in spite of and not because of mr. trump's actions. joining our discussion now, brett mcgurk served in the national security positions under presidents bush, obama, and trump, most recently as the envoy leading the global campaign to defeat isis. he's a senior foreign affairs analyst for msnbc. also joining us, malcolm nance. brett mcgurk, your reaction to "the times'" reporting about this? >> well, it's quite an extraordinary report. and what strikes me is the fact that when president trump had this call with president erdogan, this fateful call on october 6th, i think quite clearly there was no process to
staff that call to brief the president, so he fully understood the consequences if erdogan had a green light to cross the border, green light to cross border, because nobody was providing more intelligence on baghdadi -- and this isn't new. this has been going on for years now. the majority of the and what's happened since then, all the kurdish areas of syria, along the border, the vast majority of them, we've abandoned those areas and they're now under the control of russia and the assad regime. our ability to continue to prosecute this campaign, to follow up on the intelligence collected from the baghdadi compound, which must be an extraordinary amount of information, is extremely limited. it's just a total breakdown in
process, and it speaks to issues going on now, really, across the board and around the world. >> brett mcgurk, what is the overall impact you think at this point of stopping al-baghdadi? >> well, again, it is a landmark day. the men and women who pulled this off, the civil servants in the intelligence community, our men and women in the special forces, i spent a lot of time with them in iraq and syria, truly extraordinary. and baghdadi is not easily replaced. so we should not understate the achievement here. and president trump, at the end of the day, he did order this very gutsy raid. you could have obliterated the compound from the air, with jets and things. he ordered a raid across hundreds of miles of territory. that's risky. but now we've collected all of this intelligence. it's a treasure-trove. i worked on the isis account for many years. it's just unimaginable what we now have in our possession. and we want to follow up on that quickly and rapidly, but because of the chaos in northeast syria
over the last month due to the decision that the president made on october 6, this total unraveling of what was a very secure and stable situation, it will be very difficult for us to follow through on this information. the guys working it will do the best we can, but it is a deeply unfortunate situation and an unforced error. >> malcolm nance, the president when he was giving his thanks yesterday, the first country he thanked in this collaboration was russia. >> well, that's one of those aspects of the trump administration that is still a mystery to everyone. but as brett mcgurk said, it's the men and women of the armed forces who carried out this absolutely amazing piece of special operations activity and intelligence trade craft that brought us to the point where we could take out baghdadi. but for the most part, the fact that we actually were drawing down or had to plan the
drawdown, all of these resources, and there's this elaborate ballet of intelligence resources on the ground with our allies, the kurds, in the air, which any one of which had they come out of consequence, would have tipped these -- tipped this activity off, not just to the russians, but to the syrians and the turks and people that we didn't want to have happen, you know, didn't want to see and know that we were actually going to carry off this mission. but that the president of the united states would have to deconflict this mission anyway with the russians in that immediate airspace because of the resources that we put there. but to praise them first is extraordinary. i mean, that is just, you know, something that is going to have to be left for the history books or for the impeachment process to vet outbecause it certainly is not something that i think that the men and women who carried out this mission would
have expected to be at the top of their checklist. >> brett, what is the strength level of isis today? >> in iraq and syria, there's probably above 10,000 fighters or so. they're dispersed. they're trying to regenerate an insurgency. and again, this is the risk of withdrawing the bulk of our force in northeast syria. we built this campaign to be very cost effective, very low numbers of u.s. forces, really, no more than 2,000 at any given time. we're not fighting, we're not taking casualties, we're not spending that much money at all. and president trump justifies the withdrawal of these forces by saying he ran on the promise to brupg t to bring the troops home. but he's actually sent 14,000 more u.s. forces to the middle east since may. so there's so much incoherence here. and again, the ability to follow up on this operation has been significantly diminished. and without the syrian kurdish-led forces, we would not have gotten baghdadi.
without the syrian kurdish led forces, we would not have defeated the isis physical caliphate that trump praises repeatedly. and the kurdish areas in syria are now under control of russia and the assad regime, because president putin and president erdogan last week sat in a room in sochi with a map of syria and carved up all the territory that we had left. so that's what happened and the situation is really not a good one, not to mention 180,000 people who have been displaced since october 6th, many of whom are heading to an already very unstable very fragile iraq and kurtstan region. this is why you need a very serious national security team and a very serious national security council to advise the president and make good decisions and that's really not happening. >> and in president's statement yesterday that was supposed to be 900 words, and he rambled it into 8,000, there was no evidence that donald trump has any idea whatsoever of what
happens next. >> no, that's the problem with the trump administration. incoherence is just the start of how you could describe this lack of policy. what's happening here is a series of decisions which are occurring in donald trump's mind. and from those immediate decisions, which get put out in a tweet, then some policy has to be immediately drafted up on the back of a notebook and some note paper. and then as that's being executed, trump changes his mind again. what we have here is incompetence. there is no policy in the middle east. there are deals that are occurring that it appears that are happening that we don't know about, but we're seeing the parameters of them and then we find out later on that one of them betrays the number one ally of the most successful asymmetric warfare operation since the jedbergs in world war ii. so whatever donald trump is doing here, we can only expect to see absolutely more, you
know, more mayhem. that's just about all i can say. >> brett mcgurk and malcolm nance, thank you both for joining our discussion tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you. and donald trump has a long history of hating dogs. but all of that changed for one brief moment yesterday. and in tonight's last word, what is the difference between "lock her up" and "lock him up"? it's a big difference. ntly. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.
otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control
when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science.
there were a couple big reversals in trump world yesterday beginning with donald trump praising a dog. >> a canine, as they call, i call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog, was injured and brought back. >> donald trump has been a lifelong virulent dog hater. there is nothing worse than a dog in donald trump's world. >> he was run out of office like a dog. they throw you out like a dog. boy, does he talk like a dog. i'm watching marco sweating like a dog. he choked. it's just like a dog. a lot of people choke. they choke like dogs. and he was fired like a dog. she lied like a dog. she cheated like a dog. >> donald trump reserves the "like a dog" insult for the
people he hates the most, and so it was a big reversal for donald trump yesterday to use the phrase, "beautiful dog" for the first time in his life. and it was a big reversal for him last night when he appeared before a crowd of 41,000 people who spontaneously started booing donald trump while some of them chanted, "lock him up." there is a big difference between "lock him up" and "lock her up." that's next. llion. there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry clive! actually, really angry. thank you. but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling... and then do something about it. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone. customers into fanatics change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! i have a really good feeling about this.
but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks. i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks...
and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. the amazing new iphone has arrived. and so has t-mobile's newest signal. no signal goes farther or is more reliable. so you can get more out of the new iphone. better battery life, new ultra-wide camera. and at t-mobile get unlimited for only $30/line for 4 lines on a network that goes farther than ever before. and right now, switch at a t-mobile store and get the new iphone 11 on us! only at t-mobile. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
when donald trump made the mistake of presenting himself last night to the 41,000 baseball fans gathered in washington to watch the world series game, he discovered the hard way that they had not forgotten this. >> we do not need a reckless president who believes she is above the law. [ crowd chanting "lock her up" ] >> lock her up, that's right. yeah, that's right. lock her up. >> lock her up is right. she should be locked up, tell you right now. >> when donald trump was introduced to the crowd at the world series last night, not only did he get booed but for the first time in his life and surely not the last time in his life, he heard the chant "lock
him up" directed at him. [ crowd chanting "lock him up" ] >> some observers equated the crowd's use of "lock him up" with donald trump's use of "lock her up." but there's a big difference. none of the people chanting "lock him up" last night are running for president. no democratic candidate for president is ever going to lead a chant of "lock him up." no one on the democratic convention stage is going to lead a chant of "lock him up." that's never going to happen. that was not the democratic convention last night. that was a baseball game. most sports fans are cheering for things they know won't happen most of the time. most baseball teams don't come close to getting into the playoffs, but their fans cheer them all the way to the end of their failed seasons because sports fans are at the core unrealistic, always dreaming the
impossible dream for their team. so, most of those washington baseball fans last night probably have enough washington experience to know that it's very unlikely donald trump will ever be locked up even though federal prosecutors have already accused him of participating in and directing the crimes that michael cohen has pled guilty to and been locked up to. donald trump will surely issue himself a blanket pardon for that crime and other possible crimes when leaving the white house and so he will probably never be locked up but that doesn't mean that sports fans have to stop dreaming the impossible dream or giving voice to that dream if donald trump ever makes the mistake of showing up at a game again. for the rest of his life, if donald trump ever steps out of his protective bubble again, he will hear what people really think of him for the rest of his life. people will use their first amendment rights to tell donald
trump what they think of him if they ever get the chance, and that is the life sentence that donald trump can never escape. that is tonight's "last word." "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. there's late word tonight that tomorrow could be another devastating day for the trump white house because another insider, a ukraine expert, a decorated iraq war veteran, a man who listened to the phone call to ukraine, is ready to testify about what he heard and saw and the impropriety he witnessed. the picture had already darkened for trump just today as the house speaker announced they will vote on an impeachment the process of getting everything out into the open and that includes public hearings. tonight, we'll talk about the military raid that took out the world's most-wanted terrorist, immediately followed by stories about the president's announcement. the words he chose. the stories he told.