tv Deadline White House MSNBC October 5, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
fighter, a soldier in a fight in an army of justice. old soldiers never die or retire, we just fade away. and as you see, i lost a lot of weight, but i'm doing fine. i'm not fading no time soon. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. eastern for a new live edition of "politics nation." up next, the ongoing impeachment coverage continues with my colleague, richard lui. hello, everyone, back at msnbc headquarters in new york. today, this hour for you, another one? new reporting about a second intel official considering whether to file a whistle-blower complaint over president trump's dealings with ukraine. that comes as the president unleashes on mitt romney after the senator criticized trump for calling on foreign nations to investigate joe biden. plus, genuinely horrified. that's how one former white house official described the way staffers reacted to some of the
president's calls with world leaders even before the ukraine controversy began. i'll talk to one of the reporters who broke that story today. and a health scare on the campaign trail. bernie sanders now out of the hospital. he is heading home to vermont. he suffered a heart attack. we'll get reaction from one of the senator's 2020 rivals. we're going to start this hour with the very latest on the trump impeachment requirestorm. new details -- firestorm. new details are coming hard and fast by the hour. we're learning today from "the new york times" that there is another potential ukraine whistle-blower that is weighing whether or not to file his or her own complaint and testify to congress, according to two people briefed on that matter. according to the "times," this official has more direct information about the events described in the initial whistle-blower complaint that helped spark the impeachment inquiry. also, within the past 24 hours, the secretary of state, mike pompeo, missed a friday deadline to turn over state department
documents pertaining to ukraine. the secretary spoke about
the matter in front of reporters in athens earlier. take a listen. >> the state department sent a letter last night to congress which is our initial response to the document request. we've all known there's been corruption in ukraine. the united states government's been engaged in trying to push back against corruption in ukraine for quite some time. >> president trump blasted out a series of tweets this morning. he attacked everything from the whistle-blower's account to the media to one of his favorites gop foils, mitt romney. and the twitter attacks come amid a deluge of bad headlines for the president in the last 24 hours. u.s. officials telling nbc news that the cia's top lawyer, courtney simon-elwood, made what see what considered to be a criminal referral to the justice department about the whistle-blower's allegations that president trump abused his office in pressuring the ukrainian president. and "bloomberg news" reports that fulling the first whistle-blower complaint, the president ordered a substantial
staff reduction at the national security council. all of this coming a day after the heads of three key house committees, elijah cummings, am dam shift, and -- adam schiff, and ellioiot engel spoke out one house impeachment investigation. political reporter josh letterman. josh, what do we know about the second whistle-blower? the reporting that's coming from "the new york times" right now? what do we know? >> we don't know a ton, richard. that's exactly how it should be because by design, by law, whistleblowers are supposed to be anonymous and protected. we know according to "the new york times" that this potential whistle-blower is a member of the u.s. intelligence committee who was closer to the action than the whistle-blower whose complaint we've all read because that person, as you'll remember, was basing his or her information off of other officials that had conveyed concerns that they had. so this whistle-blower we know has been interviewed by the inspector germ for the
intelligence community as they were looking to contract the facts of that first whistle-blower report. now why does it mary if you have one more whistle-blower -- does it matter if you have one more whistle-blower? the president says all of this stuff with ukraine and the phone call was above board. the universe of people in the government who disagree is quickly growing. we now have one whistle-blower who's filed a formal complaint. another potential whistle-blower. we have face on the text messageses a messages released by congress. and the acting ambassadors to ukraine in realtime was expre expressing concerns. also we have a republican senator, ron johnson of wisconsin, who -- in an interview with the "wall street journal" was telling them he was so concerned when he had heard about the president's call that he had brought it up with the president directly. >> and senator johnson, by the way, on "meet the press" tomorrow for those who want to hear a firsthand account of what that senator heard and how he reacted. josh, since we've got you right now, there's this issue of
what's happened in the last 24 hours with the state department, mike pompeo, not supplying the documents, not -- not doing what the subpoenas asked him to do. the question might be what is the next step for the democrats in the house as they move forward here? >> yeah, it's ironic because mike pompeo, the secretary of state, back when he was a republican member of congress during the obama administration was the first one to berate the administration for refusing to hands over documents for not being transparent with congress. you'll remember him being the driver of the benghazi issue. look, the state department is saying that they will follow the law as far as what they're required to give over. they've missed the deadline, but governments miss deadlines all the time. but we also know that there are efforts underway by the administration to minimize what they hand over. the white house saying they're basically not going to hands over any of their documents unless and until the house formally votes on an impeachment
inquiry. i think we're going to see a lot of wrangling and probably legal disputes ahead between house democrats on the one hand and the trump administration on the other about how much they're going to hand over to congress. >> yeah. lots to cover. great summary. nbc's josh letterman for us, national political reporter for nbc. thank you, sir. let's bring in our panel, woeshl reporter and contributor carol lenig, cia. analyst and director of the national security council under president obama, also an msnbc national security contributor, ned price, and "daily beast" columnist and analyst jonathan alter. there have subpoenas that have been issued to the white house. and what will happen next? >> a lot of things could happen. but what the white house has signaled and started signaling in the middle of last week is that they are not going to be turning over any documents and not consider doing so until the house takes a vote to begin an actual impeachment proceeding, to have a vote to start that
inquiry. and in a way the white house is on solid ground because you can -- it's easier to make demands when you're in that posture, the congress has that position. but on the other hand, it's one of the -- this white house's anyway constant attempts to stall any efforts to demand records from within. it's sort of -- its sort of secret cache of documents that will show what's going on. >> part some of the evolution and reaction, ned price, the headlines coming out of "bloomberg," a place you know well being a former senior director of the national security council under the obama administration. what do you make of the reporting from "bloomberg" about reduction of staff there? >> well, in some ways i think it's on brand for donald trump. to think that the way to stop whistle-blowing, to stop the leaks, to stop the concerns emanating to congress, emanating to the intelligence committees, is to cut down to reduce the size of the staff of the
national security council. i think probably the better and more effective way to cut down on those concerns is not to partake in betrayal of our national security, not to place your own political interests ahead of those of -- ahead of our national interest. and yet, of course, we've seen donald trump take a different approach. look, i think when we talk about the information that will be made available to congress or perhaps won't be made available to congress if the white house had itdruthers, i think in some way the white house is no longer in the driver's seat. and that's because if you leek it "new york times" reporting last night, if you look at people like kurt volker, others who may come forward to offer what they know to congress, the documents that the white house is able to provide may just be a fraction of what will become available to congress through the course of these concerns, these organic concerns on the part of people who are firsthand witnesses to these events coming forward and offering their testimony. i think we're going to see more and more of that going forward.
>> with a reduction in the staff, though, should we be concerned about our capabilities when it comes to national security? >> well, absolutely. look, i think what the white house is saying is that there's a new national security adviser in town. he wants to remake the staff of the national security council in his own image. and certainly the obama administration also attempted to downsize the staff of the national security council. we reduced it by about 10% through attrition. but the point is that the national security council staff was already largely as a result of that pretty lean. and you can't really cut much of the national security council staff without affecting capabilities and what the staff is able to do day in, day out. and i fear that in his effort to clamp down on leaks and to be more controlling of what happens in his white house and, more importantly, to donald trump, what goes out of his white house, that we will see a less nimble, less effective national security council staff. and that is profoundly not in our national security interest. >> based on the reporting coming in about those who would have interest in our elections,
that's one point related to all of this. jonathan alter, the other story that we're watching that came out in the last 24 hours, the cia. head lawyer here, passing on a criminal referral to the department of justice. it was not investigated, and what this says about the inquiry that we're looking at as adam schiff moves forward. >> well, this is very significant, richard, because the bulwark defense that the white house has when republicans now are starting to say, look, this wasn't a good call, they're saying, well, it might not have looked so good, the optics might not have been so good, but it's not criminal. when you have a criminal referral here and you have a lot of evidence now to suggest that this was an extortion effort, n and extortion is illegal, on its face it violated campaignvance laws, we start -- campaign finance laws, we start to move into the realm of criminality.
as far as them holding up on documents, those documents at this point are supplemental. we have a very good sense of what happened at the scene of the crime, the call, and the house has already plenty of evidence on which to bring an impeachment. so everything that's going on now, you know, adds to the case that the house will have for impeaching this president. but it's not determinative of the outcome. we already know the outcome unless there's a 9/11-type event in the next couple of months, this president will be impeached by the house of representatives. >> always an important read, and that's what carol does right. we'll go straight to what you're reporting today here, carol. i'll read the headline, "trump's calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides leave something genuinely horrified." and in this great read, you describe the discomfort of what many staffers and officials have
seen when the president gets on the phone, especially relevant today when we look at what's happening with ukraine's leader. >> yeah. richard, that's right. and you know what's -- what was amazing to me in gathering there material with my good colleagues, shane harris and josh dawcy, we had been gathering string for a while, indications of calls that had gone off the rails or made national security staff very uncomfortable or had led to terrible insults and mistakes and work up ended. and with the ukraine call coming out and the news that we were chasing about that, we went back to some more people to discover that there were some calls that were even more -- as one person said -- horrifying than the others we've known about for a while. we gathered them all together here, and then i think sort of the hair went up on the back of my neck when i was interviewing various intelligence officers about what did they think about all of the examples we've gathered. and they said it means that people are telling you and that
they're in this horrible vice between this terrible burden of being between the position of trust that they have in the white house where you're supposed to be silent and do your job and keep still and quiet, and this obligation, this feeling of obligation to tell someone what you have seen because it is so disturbing to our process as a democracy. and many of the people luckily for the public chose to give us this information and tell us more about what the president had said on these calls that made them so uncomfortable. >> carol, without necessarily the details themselves, understanding your sources here, are these from one to ten, ten being the most concerning, are these a lot of fives, a lot of sevens, eights? where would you put it? >> that's a good question. i think it's unfair to give it a number as much as it would be easy to do. i think they're more in buckets or categories.
one is where the president just looks ill informed and childish. and there are others where he looks like all he cares about is himself, as when he asks abe if he can get help in recommending him, meaning trump, for a nobel peace prize. there are in the third bucket instances where he's putting national security on a back burner for whatever wish he has. and those are the most frightening to the people who listen to these calls and to -- the people who have to report back to the state department or the intelligence community about what has happened. >> ned, your thought on this? putting on your former cia analyst hat here in addition to what the headline is about the top lawyer at the cia moving forward. again, that criminal concern, that referral. >> well, i think there's really one important item that stands out from that nbc news reporting, richard, and that's the fact that we learned for the first time last night that
everyone who caught wind of these concerns -- remember, this was before the formal whistle-blower complaint was filed -- but everyone who caught wind of the concerns filed a referral with the department of justice. we knew the acting d&i had done so, we knew the inspector general had done so. last night we learned that the cia general counsel had done so, as well. what is interesting i think and for some ways underscores the danger of the situation we're in, however, is that when the cia general counsel made what she intended to be a criminal referral to the justice department, there was another party on the phone. and that was a lawyer from the white house who previously had been put in charge of, in some ways, effecting the cover upof the transcript of that july 25th call. this was the lawyer, the individual, who authorized the placement of that call on a top-secret code word-level
national security council system. i think in some ways, this is just the wilderness of mirrors that we're in. the person who was really driving the cover-up was on a call to refer this matter to the justice department for potential criminal prosecution. >> jonathan, react to what ned and carol have just been talking about. the question might be out there for you -- what's the best case scenario about the president and these discussions that he's having? the cia, again, top lawyer has a concern, a criminal referral. carol's reporting here that many conversations have happened like this before. >> well, i guess the best case scenario for him is that it's egotism as usual, trying to lobby for a nobel peace prize, that kind of thing. it's always about him. he puts himself in front of the nation over and over and over again, which is its own kind of abuse of power. you're not supposed to use the office for your personal interests. it's possible, i guess the best case for him would be that there's no evidence of law
breaking on those other calls. but there's already evidence of law breaking on the call with the president of ukraine. richard, this scandal is metastasizing as we speak. remember when john dean said there's a cancer growing on the presidency? cancer is all over the body of this president. you know, and this presidency i should say. this is very advanced. the corruption is -- is in a very stage-four corruption. we're not like just kind of sniffing around the edges of this story trying to get enough evidence to show that the president is unfit. he is manifestly unfit. that has already been established. everything else is supplemental. >> and justice inquiry week and a half old, we are learning a lot and quickly. >> yes, we are. >> carol, ned, jonathan, thank you all three for being here on this saturday evening. >> thanks. >> thanks. coming up, a dizzying week for democratic presidential
candidates as impeachment continues to cast a long shadow over the 2020 campaign trail. we're going to speak live with congressman tim ryan of ohio who says that the president is publicly committing crimes to normalize his behavior. ahead, house democrats fight with the white house to obtain documents related to the ukraine whistle-blower case where. where they stand on the subpoenas and call for witness testimony. subpoenas and call for witness testimony. car insurance, 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 ♪ upbeat music♪ no cover-up spray here. cheaper aerosols can cover up odors in a flowery fog. but febreze air effects eliminates odors. with a 100% natural propellent. it leaves behind a pleasant scent you'll love. [ deep inhale] freshen up. don't cover up. febreze.
and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus, get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. that's simple. easy. awesome. call, click, or visit a store today. all right.
let's take you to the 2020 campaign trail. former vice president joe biden continues to beat back unsubstantiated claims from president trump surrounding his son, hunter's, work in ukraine. >> got to get something straight. all this talk of the president about corruption comes from the most corrupt president we've had in modern history. he's the definition of corruption. he's indicted himself by his own statements. there is not about me. it's not about my son. there's not a shred of evidence there's anything done wrong. >> then senator elizabeth warren, she continues are rise in the polls and senator bernie sanders right now forced to the sidelines for a few days. sanders leaving a las vegas hospital yesterday. he traveled home to vermont after his campaign confirmed the candidate did suffer a heart attack. but the sanders campaign insists the senator will participate in the next debate. that's october 15th, in ohio, as the top 12 candidates prepare to face off. joining us from youngstown,
ohio, democratic congressman from ohio and presidential candidate tim ryan who did not make that cut for that debate that is happening in his state. thank you so much for being with us, representative. i want to start first with what you're watching carefully. not only your candidacy to become president of the united states, but what's in front of us when we look at the impeachment inquiry. and with the release of several headlines, you take your pick, there's the cia top lawyer saying "i did pass a criminal referral," there's the ignoring of the subpoenas and the requests by the state department as well as by the white house, and now moving to the next level. is this, as you look forward, a step toward the impeachment inquiry basically getting a slam-dunk because they have so much information? >> yeah. it's getting more certain by the minute. and i think one of the things i'm thinking about is how really the institutions, some of them, are starting to work. you see these criminal referrals by people who were witnessing
and listening to the conversations that donald trump was having, immediately referring them to the department of justice, red flags left and right. so the average american should say, wow, everybody listening to that call was very, very concerned about it and gave it to the department of justice. but the issue really we're dealing with is a political issue. an impeachment and a conviction and a trial is a political issue. you're not before a judge and jury so to speak. it's going to be based on a bunch of politicians. it's going to come out of the house. and will the institution of the united states senate led by republicans, mitch mcconnell and others, be able to meet their obligation to the american people to uphold the standards that we have set for presidents in this country? and it's looking like the answer's going to be no. but again, the institutions of democracy hold up. all of those people have to run for re-election, and they will be judged by their decision that they make in the united states senate. >> you've heard the white house here, representative. they're saying you need to have a vote, speaker pelosi, before
we hand over any documents. what's your response? >> no, no, we don't. the committees of jurisdiction have the ability to investigate. look, it gets back to the founding of the country. article one created the congr s congress, the house of representatives and the senate. the presidency doesn't come along until the next article in the constitution because we were separating ourselves from a king. the idea is the people govern, the people will oversee the presidency. the president will have tremendous power, and has accumulated tremendous power over the last few hundred years. the people still govern. so they have to respond to the committees of jurisdiction. we're going to have a constitutional crisis here, but don't worry and wait too long, there will be a vote in the house of representatives. and he will be impeached, and this will move to the next step. this is insane what's happening here. and the fact that republicans are protecting him, you know, i'm ready to go back and have
conversations and political discussions about how mitt romney was wrong or john mccain or ronald reagan like in a political and policy way. we're talking about this guy is -- is running roughshod over the united states constitution. >> if you had to vote today, would you vote for impeachment, representative? >> oh, i most certainly would. i mean, i was for impeachment after reading his obstruction of justice during the mueller investigation. i think he's clearly obstructed justice. lookers -- lookers here's a guy, i'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but a spoiled rich kid who has never faced consequences in his entire life. then he became president of the united states. he got investigated. no consequences still. and here we are, we're finally the institutions are starting to come around him a little bit, and you know, cut off some of the oxygen. but he's never had to deal with the consequences. you can see by his rhetoric. you can see how he talks.
you can see how he lies. he doesn't face consequences at all. >> you've heard the criticism. those who say they're raid to impeach. the inquiry stage now. shouldn't you have an open mind before making that decision? >> well, yeah, i'm talking about the previous, you know, comments with the mueller report, but look, i'm not blind. the president has admitted and then publicly stated, publicly encouraged foreign leaders to investigate his political opponent back here in the united states. you don't need to be a philadelphia lawyer to figure out that this guy is committing high crimes and misdemeanors with every press conference that he's having. and so i can't detach my brain from what i'm watching on tv and the evidence is piled up, as you -- as you state in the last segment with people, you know, going to the department of justice, making criminal referrals about what he's doing. i mean, this, you know, we're all alive and awake and watching
this. it doesn't take too much to put two and two together. >> we reported at the beginning of the segment about fund-raising numbers. how did you do in the last quarter? >> well, i didn't do nearly as well as everybody else. buff i think the race is -- is shaken up a little bit in the last two weeks. i think, you know, with the impeachment, with elizabeth warren taking the lead, i think a lot of people now watching the impeachment know now more than ever, richard, that we have got to beat donald trump. and i am the best candidate to great donald trump. i've been in congress 17 years from a blue-collar community in ohio. we need to beat northwestern ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, he was in this community telling us not to sell the house. going to bring jobs back. meanwhile, factories have closed and the economy's not done well at all. people are struggling. who best to take on donald trump but the very person that represents the people that he lied to? and we've got to remember, look,
we've got to beat him as democrats. this is not time for a revolution. the revolution will happen by removing donald trump from office. that in and of itself is a revolution. and people are now calling me, frankly, that weren't kacallinge two or three weeks ago that want to raise money for me. they think i am the best opportunity to beat this guy. people can go to timryanamerica.com, sends me money, help me out. i'm the guy that can beat him. we've got a few months lesft. we're getting a good response. i'm the guy that can take him down, and i very much look forward to the opportunity to do that. >> osu in the game here today? how you think they're going to fare against michigan state? >> well, i hear the stadium's packed. >> yeah. >> people are going crazy. so we're -- we're very excited for tonight. i think we're going to be all right. got a great team this year. >> all right, go, blue, my
friend, go, blue. >> hey. you hurt me. don't hurt me. >> why not? thank you, sir. have a good evening. >> thanks. next, the ukraine call, the china call, text messages between u.s. and ukrainian officials and the president's own words on camera. does any of it amount to a smoking gun for impeachment? we'll ask two former federal prosecutors. rmer federal osprecutors. we're oscar mayer deli fresh and you may know us from... your very first sandwich, 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.
new in the last 24 hours, "the new york times" now reporting that a potential second intelligence official considering blowing the whistle on the president's dealings with ukraine. but even if a second whistle-blower complaint does emerge, the road to impeachment not completely clear. for one, the white house could attempt to ignore subpoenas, something they have done effectively during the mueller probe. another obstacle potentially could be getting witnesses to testify. secretary of state mike pompeo has already tried to block five state department officials from providing depositions to congress. and as they've done in the past the president and his administration could block congress from certain information under the umbrella of executive privilege. let's go to a former federal prosecutor and paul butler, former federal prosecutor and professor at georgetown school
of law. both are msnbc legal analysts. paul, let's start with what happened, mike pompeo, the secretary of state, saying subpoena's nice, not going to give you what you asked for. what's next? what can the democrats do? >> so they can take it to court. they can sue, and they will win. the question is how long. some of these issues could go all the way up to the supreme court. we know the president's strategy is to try to run out the clock until the 2020 election. and now the only alternative the democrats have is to say, number one, if you don't cooperate, then we will take that as an adverse inference, meaning that you're trying to hide something, so that suggests that you're guilty. the other thing that the democrats have said they'll do is to use that as an article of impeachment. obstruction of an impeachment process. so they will attribute the white house intransigence to the president and use that as part
of the ground for impeachment. >> so barrett, in those cases that paul just related to us, would that increase the speed that this impeachment inquiry is going through right now, or would it slow it down? >> well, i think any time that congress is able to keep this out of the courts, it's going to speed it up because exactly as paul said, once you enter into the court system, there's necessarily going to be delay. and remember, i mean, cases do not work their way through the courts system in a matter of months. it oftentimes is a matter of years which is a benefit that is -- a luxury that congress doesn't necessarily have. i think the problem with the adverse intruth in sentencing option for congress -- inference option for congress which may be the only option now, is that saying you can take an adverse inference from having missing evidence may be legally sufficient, you may be able to say this can take the place for this missing evidence legally, but it's really not a substitute in the court of public opinion. so without having that evidence for people to actually see to get their heads around, i don't know that it has the same kind
of a punch. >> and then there's witnesses, right, paul, and right now the secretary of state saying nobody from the state department, what's the next step? >> well, if the issue is did the president of the united states tell the ukrainians that we will only give you military aid if you help president trump in his political campaign, if that's what has to be determined, there are at least three smoking guns right now. so the first was the president's own words and the summary we have of the conversation with the ukrainian leader when he talked about military aid and then said "i need you to do me a favor, though." we have text messages from diplomats who assume that that's what the president was doing, that it was a quid pro quo, and they were complaining about that. and we have people like rudy giulia giuliani. we don't need pompeo when rudy giuliani is saying on national television that, yes, the
president did basically offer the quid pro quo. that's why we've seen the trump defense evolve or devolve from "i didn't do it" to "maybe i did it, but it's not a crime." that's wrong. >> so how would you compel these witnesses that are now it appears at the moment not being allowed by the secretary of state, are these more subpoenas? >> yeah. i mean, it's tricky. i think the house democrats are in a tough position here. there's really only three ways for congress to compel a witness. there's criminal contempt which would necessitate getting the justice department, but headed by bill barr to come forward with some sort of criminal action which it seems like is an unlikely action. there's civil enforcement which, as we talked about before, is, you know, fraught with delay in the courts. the third option is this historically unused option of inherent contempt which involves sort of congress going out with a sergeant-at-arms and actually arresting witnesses who defy them. that has not been historically used, but who knows, maybe that's something we are in strange times now, maybe that's
something congress gives another look to. >> anything is possible. executive privilege, paul butler, how far might that go? how might the white house use that? >> so we know they're already using it -- at least they're implying that they might use it. so that could work. again, the executive privilege means that the president should be able to have private conversations with his top-level officials, understanding that they're not going to be subject to public scrutiny. so i think courts will take that seriously. there haven't been a whole lot of court cases on it because what usually happens is that the white house and the congress work it out. and the trump administration does not work it out with the house. but again, then it's up to the courts, and that just feeds into their strategy for delay, delay, delay, all they want is to make it to the 2020 election, and then the political stakes are much lower. >> berit, we have seen this president say things in public, and if you're critical of what the president has done so far, you will say when he's reaching
out to ukraine, when he's reaching out to china, reaching out to russia for assistance that may affect a political race here in the united states, this sort of plain view approach, what might be used legally, what might be used with the in-house intel committee as they move forward in their inquiry? >> yeah, i mean, what you have here is a pattern of the president engaging in the same kindergarten kind of conduct. whether it's done covertly in a private phone call with a world leader or done overtly in a press conference with reporters there, it really is of no significance. what matters is what the president said, but most importantly what the intent was. and i think congress can certainly use the president's own words as a great starting point as they begin their inquiry. certainly they're going to need other witnesses and documents to supplement that, to get to that intent aspect. the intent of the president, was it to influence the 2020 election, or was it something else? the president's words are going
to be a great starting place, but they're going to need other witnesses and evidence to build their case. >> berit berger, paul butler, both former federal prosecutors and msnbc legal analysts. thank you. really informative discussion. thank you. appreciate it. coming up, senator bernie sanders is off the campaign trail following a heart attack and hospital stay. what we know about his health and what that might mean for 2020. ght meanor f 2020 i can't believe it. what? that our new house is haunted by casper the friendly ghost? hey jill! hey kurt! movies? i'll get snacks! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on our car insurance with geico. i got snacks! ohhh, i got popcorn, i got caramel corn, i got kettle corn. am i chewing too loud? believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month,
the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business.
from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory... and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. (engines rev) the only thing better than horsepower... ...is more horsepower. (engines rev) if we were for everyone, we'd be for no one. with dodge power dollars, more power means more cash allowance. purchase now and get $10 per horsepower. that's $7,970 on the srt challenger hellcat redeye.
just in, video here of senator bernie sanders just arriving back home in vermont after suffering what we now know as a heart attack that happened earlier this week. his upcoming events for the next few days, according to the campaign, have been canceled. however, his campaign staff says that bernie sanders will be at the next debate in just ten days. sanders left the hospital on friday night after getting two stents inserted and shared this message for everybody who was supporting him on twitter. >> i just got out of the hospital a few hours ago, and i'm feeling so much better. i just want to thank all of you for the love and warm wishes that you sent to me. see you soon on the campaign trail. >> all right. straight to nbc news road warrio warriors, first in charleston, south carolina. shaq, what does this mean for the sanders campaign? what does it mean for all the other campaigns now that he's taking off time here?
>> reporter: that's right. you saw the video of senator sanders, now back in his burlington, vermont, home. and our reporter, julia jester, who was there, got to shout some questions at senator sanders. said that senator sanders and jane sanders were happy to be back. they were greeted by their stepdaughters and family, grandkids there. as we know, this means senator sanders will not be on the campaign trail for the next few days. he will be down resting, reco r recovering from this heart attack while campaigning in vegas. however, i've been hearing in south carolina at this blue gem as they call it here, and there were several representative candidates here and sanders' surrogates were here. nina turner was here to talk to the crowd and talk about senator sanders. you're seeing that scene play out in other early primary states. he had a surrogate in iowa, for example. he had a surrogate in new hampshire. so the campaign is very much trying to show that while senator sanders may be off the road, while he may be recovering and resting for a period that's undetermined at this point, we
know that he'll be on that october debate stage, on october 15th, in columbus, ohio. but while he's down and off the trail, they're trying to show that he is out there and his campaign operation is still moving as this campaign continues to roll on. >> shaq, as you've been talking with voters and listening to the seven candidates today in charleston, how has the story of the impeachment inquiry resonated with voters and with the candidates that are out on the trail? >> reporter: it's interesting. this is an event with democratic voters. it's a democratic event. so these are the heart of the -- this is the heart of the democratic party here in this pretty conservative state. and talking to voters, i mean, there's a sense that they were happy or they appreciated the fact that congress is moving forward on this impeachment inquiry. they feel that the president did serious wrongdoing, that there was corruption there, and they're happy that the congress is holding him to account. however, you also have and you see that with representative joe cunningham here in the state, he's a representative, one of the eight remaining democrats
who is holding out his support for impeachment. they understand the hesitation. they understands that this is a long process, especially when you have representatives in states or in districts that president trump won. so listen to what one voter told me about her experience with this impeachment inquiry and how she's viewing it. >> i think anybody who is doing something that is possibly illegal, they need to be held accountable for that. they need to be investigated. i don't have a lot of confidence that it's actually going to happen. >> reporter: do you think that this is something that could end up helping trump in the future? that's a fear that i hear from other democrats. >> i do fear that because it looks like his numbers have kind of jumped up. he's been able to get millions of dollars in donations to his campaign. i am floored by that. >> reporter: and i actually spoke to senator kamala harris
after she got off stage and asked about the balance that you hear, where people say it's impeachment or the other issues. she called that a false choice and said you can focus on impeachment and also focus on the issues. >> great to have you, shaq, thanks as always, my friend. next, the supreme court gets ready to face a blockbuster question -- can employers legally fire workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity? ♪ ♪ create up to 12 combinations with applebee's new pasta and grill combos starting at $9.99. and get more bites for your buck with our late night half-priced apps. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
i that's the retirement plan.e, with my annuity, i know there is a guarantee. it's for my family, its for my self, its for my future. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retire your risk dot org. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. even a- (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow! oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way!
. as a supreme court prepares to begin its october term this week, the justices will be tasked with answering a crucial question here. is it legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender? a transgender woman from michigan and a gay man from georgia are at the center of this argument. to date only 21 states as well as washington, d.c., guam, and puerto rico have statutes protecting lgbt from discrimination. ria, thanks for being with us today. >> thank you so much for having me. >> what is at stake and what do you think is going to happen here? >> sure. as you said, richard, the
question is whether it's perfectly legal to fire someone simply for being lgbtq. that's what happened to these aclu people. there are millions of lgbt people in this country, 1 in 4 say they've experienced crimination at work in the last year alone. this goes to keeping a living, keep a roof over our heads. >> i mentioned the 21 states, including washington, guam, and puerto rico right now having statutes that do protect those that are lightweight from workplace discrimination. what will happen if it goes to the supreme court, supreme court says, yes, we do support or do not support. >> this case involves a federal law passed in 1964 that says workers should be free to compete based on their merit regardless of factors like race, religion, or sex. when you fire someone because he's a man who lots of other
men, is that discrimination because of sex? so that question is going to affect the entire nation. if the court says it's perfectly fine to cease fire someone for being lightweight, that's going to send a disturbing message about the value of lgbt people in our country. >> which way do you think this is going to go? >> this is going to be a test for the conservatives of the supreme court. they say they interpret law based on looking at the words. if you do that, we have the better of the arguments. of course, that's not a traditional conservative view. the question is will they be true to their principles or true to their politics. >> you're saying it's going to be close? >> it's going to be a close call. justice roberts won't want to be rubber stamped for the trump administration's agenda. >> ria, thank you so much from the aclu. >> thank you so much for having me. coming up at the top of the hour for you, new reporting surrounding the impeachment inquiry. stay tuned. performance comes in lots of flavors.
there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ so you don't have to stash antacids here....tc and take control of heartburn. here... or here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. but allstate helps you. with drivewise.
feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? i've always been i'm still going for my best... even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.
while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.
hello, everyone. i'm richard lui live in new york city. thanks for being with us on this saturday evening. several new reports today just out this hour involving the ongoing impeachment inquiry. axios reporting that on a conference call with house members on friday, the president claimed he made that now-infamous ukraine call at the urging of energy secretary rick perry. he's saying he did not even want to make the call in the first place. also new this hour, republican senator susan collins tells the
bangor daily news that president trump's invitation for china to investigate the bidens was, quote, completely inappropriate. this makes collins one of the few republicans to speak out against the president. it comes as "the new york times" has a new report out this hour with inside information that joe biden is struggling to form a response to president trump's allegations surrounding ukraine, remake making him look more vulnerable than at any point in his campaign so far. let's go to nbc news white house correspondent hans nichols. hans, the president today cast a wide net on twitter. he attacked several of his favorite targets, including mitt romney because he was a republican who was coming out against the president. and then, again, there are all the reports that have come out, the cia, lead counsel as you were telling us earlier today with that criminal referral. where do we start? >> richard, think of the president's tweets as rifle shots. they have a broader implication. they are a warning to