tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC December 12, 2019 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded! . midnight eastern time, which makes this friday, which makes the proper greeting good morning for from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. it's now the start of day 1,058 of this trump administration here on the east coast, the final friday 13th of the decade. look at it that way. the breaking news this hour a surprise, sudden end to the judiciary committee marathon debate on the articles of impeachment against president donald trump. the committee wrapped up suddenly, just a short time ago without taking the vote that would have sent the articles to
>> chairman nadler just needed his staff and the rest of the majority who sat their quietly and be sure nothing, this is why they don't like us because they know it's all about games and these tv anscreens. it's all about -- have they want the prime time hit. this is speakers pelosi and the others directing the come on et. i need to say what hit does this committee need to do because this committee hlost. >> the debate began with its first sessionhe yesterday eveni, continued through the day today and into the night. republicansin offered up a seri of amendments that they knew would be voted down along party lines. there was fierce sparring between remembers dems and republicans turnover charges against the president. >> the entire argument for impeachment in this case is
based on a charge that is not a crime. much less a high crime that has never been approved by the house of representatives in a presidential impeachment before, ever in history. >> there are no crimes here? that is the defense my colleagues across the aisle are putting forward? the president committed the highest crime against the constitution by abusing his office. >> the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against his political rival and his political rival happened to be joe biden, and he knew that that was navid conspicuously using public office and public money for public and private desires. >> democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections, such as therd righ to see all the evidence, the right to call witnesses, or the right to have counsel at
hearings. >> the partisan showdown got personal quickly when trump ally matt gaetz, republican of florida, brought up hunter biden's job with the ukrainian gas company, burisma, and his history of substance abuse. >> that was enough for one democratic committee member who pointed out gaetz's own past arrest forn dui which then brought a plea for the panel to stay focused on the business at hand.
>> i would say that the pot the calling kettle black is not something that we should do. i don't know -- [ laughter ] i don't know what members, if any, have had problems with substance abuse, been busted in dui. i don't know. but if i did, i wouldn't raise it against anyone on this committee. ai >> there are issues for the election, and then there are issues for this committee.s the behavior of vice president biden's son and, frankly, the be behavior of president trump's two sons and daughter may be discussed in the election. but here we're talking about the abuse of presidential authority. >> for the record there, congressman johnson was referring to matt gaetz, his arrest 11 years ago indeed for a dui.
even during a break in today's hearing, republicans maintained their defense of president trump, particularly the president's claim that his actions stemmed from concerns about corruption in ukraine and not his political rival. >> is it the position of the republicans that the president didn't ask for an investigation into the bidens? >> this goes back to the whole issue of what the president has felt all along that corruption in the ukraine was a problem. that's where he's been -- >> did he say corruption in the call? >> again, it goes back to an issue -- he doesn't say because -- >> so it's still your contention even though he didn't bring up s corruption in either of these calls that corruption is actually what he was focused on and not joe biden? >> it has been. there's nothing to change here because that's the facts. >> do you wish the president be hadn't brought up joe biden? >> i think the protocol is fine as is. >> you heard the president's concern has been corruption all along. while all this was going on, the president was unleashing an
avalanche on twitter, well over 100 different social media er posts, including this one which seemed to hint at the basis for a future defense, more of a look over there defense. why aren't germany, france, and other european countries helping ukraine more? they are the biggest beneficiaries. why is it always the good old united states? the radical left do nothing in democrats never mention this as their phony hearing. in all 31 house democrats represent districts that trump won in 2016. there are now increasing signs that republicans are taking aim at them with a pro-trump ad campaign. >> the verdict is in. a rigged process. a sham impeachment. no quid pro quo. but pelosi's witch hunt continues. one democrat congressman calledh it hopelessly partisan. another oneel like you would se in third-world nations.
your money, wasted. your priorities ignored. >> indeed nbc news reports that house democrats are now actively trying to convince vulnerable democrats to come over onto their side to oppose the impeachment articles. according to one source, republicans are focusing ong upwards of eight democrats who have indicated they may be undecided. earlier today speaker pelosi wai asked what she is telling
members of her democratic caucus. >> i have no message to them. we are not whipping this legislation nor do we ever whip something like this. people have to come to their own conclusions. they've seen the facts and the intelligence committee. they've seen the constitution as they know it.nd they take an oath to protect and defend it, but they see the io constitutional experts speak about it. they'll make their own decisions. i don't say anything to them. e
>> the white house is now looking ahead to the inevitability of a senate trial. today white house counsel pat cipollone met with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on capitol hill. earlier tonight mcconnell spoke about strategizing with the administration. >> everything i do during this i'm coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position. but we'll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time. there's no chance the president's going to be removed from office. my hope is that there won't be a single republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment. sean, it wouldn't surprise me if we got one or two democrats. this is a really weak case, and that's why you will see bipartisan opposition to the articles over in the house. >> here for our lead-off discussion on an early friday morning, maya wily, former u.s. assistant attorney for the southern district of new york with a new school here in new york. kurt bardella, the former spokesman for the house oversight committee, also happens to be a former
republican who left the party to become a democrat. he's now a contributor to "usa today" and to nbcnews.com. in washington, jonathan allen, our nbc news national political reporter. rick wilson, republican strategist, author of the book "running against the devil." ron klain, former chief counsel of the senate judiciary, former chief of staff to al gore and former chief of staff of joe biden who these days is an informal adviser to the biden effort. and former u.s. attorney joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. sorry, everybody. that's all the time we have. thank you for coming. just kidding. you do wonder what other broadcasts are doing since we have all the guests at this hour. we're going to make good use of them. ron klain, i'd like to begin with you with the last thing we just heard from mitch mcconnell. is there anything wrong with the white house counsel and the majority leader in the senate as you heard them, working hand in
hand, step by step? is there anything ethically wrong with it that you can see? >> well, it's certainly not what the constitution intends. the constitution gives the congress the house the power to impeach the president. the senate, the specific constitutional duty to try the president. peter baker is the expert on the clinton impeachment. i was in the clinton white house then. what i'll tell you is that basically the democrats and the republicans came together to kind of come up with procedures to make the trial a reasonable and serious process. what we've seen here is a very partisan approach by the republicans, and i think what you saw in the house today in particular was an effort to demean the process, to diminish the process, to make it even more political, to make it even more partisan. and so it's not surprising to me that mitch mcconnell's doing that, but it's certainly not what either the democrats or the republicans did the last time we had an impeachment trial. >> kurt, you have been madly texting back and forth with
folks you know inside the room where it happened tonight. what can you add to our reporting? >> it was with eric swalwell asking him about this abrupt decision to end the hearing. here's what he said. he said i don't understand their complaints, the republicans complaints we heard, especially doug collins at that microphone. they think we should vote in the dead of night. they want people to see what we're doing. it's a vote from impeachment. they do not want to have the headline that in the dead of night, late hours, no one watching, they took this historic vote. they want to do this during broad daylight. it's interesting that we've heard for days now republicans complain about the process being too quick. now they're saying it's too slow. we've seen them complain about not having enough say during these hearings and not having enough people watching and engaging and here they're saying we're going to do this in front of everybody, front of the the american people during daylight hours when people are paying attention. why would republicans be against that? >> let me ask devil's advocate. i know you're not their
spokesperson, but why does it take your text from eric swalwell to get that point out? where was a democrat at the microphones? where was a simple explanation from the chairman before we heard the gavel and the audible gasps? that was the last we heard of the democrats tonight until tomorrow morning. >> i think they believe that ultimately the vote they're going to have tomorrow will speak for itself. they don't need to go before the cameras. it's interesting. republicans were complaining that this move was about getting tv cameras and trying to play to the media. yet they're the only ones front of the cameras in this case. democrats weren't politicizing this. they made their decision. they announced when the hearing is going to be, and they're going to let that vote speak for itself. they don't feel the need to come before the cameras right now and do that. >> john allen, same question. >> i've never heard anybody complain about a 14-hour hearing being recessed at 11:00 p.m. before. there's a bit of a situation
here like the child that kills his parents goes before the judge and begs for mercy because he's now an orphan. there was going to be an argument here whether they had the vote tonight, there was going to be an argument if they had it in the morning. we've heard arguments from republicans about the process no matter what the process has been. i think that what garrett haake was reporting earlier tonight, what kurt's reporting today is absolutely right that the democrats simply felt like it was better for them to do this in daylight rather than spend the next year hearing about how they did it in the dead of night. all of us who've been on capitol hill before, for a long time includes ron and kurt and garrett earlier tonight. we know that the thing that gets talked about most as an you fair -- an unfair process move is any vote that happens after midnight. jerry nadler obviously had his eye on the clock and made sure he gaveled out before then. >> all right. joyce vance, bring us into the law. did you hear any novel
republican defense tonight? did you hear a republican defense that they can throw in a wheelbarrow, take through the capitol to the senate chamber and use it as part of their defense? >> so short answer, brian, no. we didn't see anything new today and still the president has given the republicans virtually nothing to work with when it comes to a defense. i think they're essentially down to throwing spaghetti up the wall and trying to make a mess that's so bad that no one can see through it. if i could agree with ron a little bit on this, i think shocking videotape we have of mitch mcconnell on fox tonight, what we've now seen is the foreman of the jury fixing the outcome of the trial with the defendant's lawyer. not only does it violate the separation of powers obligation in the constitution, but the senate engage in oversight of the executive branch, it will
also violate the special oath of office that every senator has to take going into an impeachment trial to try the case based on the facts. so all we've seen today from the republicans is an effort to disguise, to try to confuse the public, and at the end make sure that they fix outcome of the trial in favor of president trump. >> rick wilson, what is it about this committee that attracts, oh, shall we say, a different breed of member of congress often? >> i mean, look, i don't want to say that doug collins is a screeching histrionic drama queen, but that would insult histrionic drama queens. but this whole thing is a bad faith effort, it is performative in every way. every one of these guys in this committee are out there waving their junk around to the maximum degree to distract from the fact that the president committed crimes high and otherwise in the course of trying to extort a
foreign power to manipulate a united states election. they know that. they get that. but they are very disciplined and structured. they know exactly what they're doing. they're playing for the fox cameras and playing for their siloed set of media that the trump fan base watches and listens to. and they're trying, as joyce said, to basically frame this so it goes to the after at and -- to the senate and mitch mcconnell can say, my guys in the house said it was unfair, so nope, 51 votes, you're out, we're done. that is going to be an interesting legacy question. i think it really is an interesting point because mitch mcconnell as a political survivor is a very smart guy. he may be buying his folks a problem because this isn't really over. we're going to learn more about ukraine and the defenses the republicans mounted in the house were all bs. we're going to learn there's a lot under the surface, it's a fecal iceberg. you only see the stinky part on the top. there's a lot more underneath the water still. >> wow. bringing the imagery very early
in the morning on a friday. rick, i don't know how to thank you for that. >> i move to strike the last word, brian. >> gentleman will be recognized when i'm ready. maya wiley -- >> you're coming to me after that? >> well, this touching on a legal conversation you and i were having. having nothing to do with icebergs, junk, or histe onnics. and that is the fact-gathering process that continues -- >> yes. >> -- beneath the surface of the water to go with the iceberg. >> yes. so first of all, you know, we have to remember that the house has a number of investigations that are unrelated to these articles of impeachment. >> right. >> that are ongoing. that's why the earlier conversation we had about the ongoing litigation on subpoenas matter because if we get confirmation from the supreme court that, yes, in fact, you can't just tell a former senior
aide you can't go testify, you can ignore a congressional subpoena, or if you can impose what is one of these articles of impeachment an absolute unequivocal we won't give you a thing congress, because we don't want to, not even actually saying here's our privilege. we just don't want to. that's the kind of thing that will continue to be an issue. as we've seen, adam schiff has said we continue to investigate. is there sufficient evidence? absolutely. have we seen a congress a republican party in particular raise not one objection, not one objection to a president that has stolen their gavel? that is crowning a king. >> ron klain, i need an honest answer before we need to fit in a commercial and keep this whole gang around.
when democrats get together, what do you do with the kind of -- the end of the day knowledge that we all know where this thing is heading, and we kind of all know how this thing is going to end up, how do you stay up and stay in the game because this is obviously important to your party? >> look, i think they're doing the right thing, which is trying to play it straight, do their jobs, talk about the facts, talk about the law, and let both ultimately the voters this coming fall be the judge and history be the judge and let their consciences be the judge. usually you're talking about the other side. republicans of the house tried to make the thing in the circus enough they were willing to put on clown suits themselves to make the thing into a circus, and i think the democrats need to defend the process. the republicans cannot defend the president, they're demeaning the process.
the democrats need to defend the process and need to go about this in the proper way. and i think that's the thing that will do them the best as this unfolds. >> all of our guests nice enough to be with us at 12:20 a.m. on a friday night have agreed to stay with us over the break as we talk about where this process heads next exactly as "the 11th hour," make that closer to the 12th, continues. ♪
here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.
>> new reporting from "the new york times" gives us a glimpse into how this president is handling this kind of pressure. maggie haberman and peter baker write, and we, quote, as the house moves toward even what he says is an inevitable vote to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, mr. trump toggles between self-pity and combativeness. he looks forward to a senate trial he seems sure to win and
thinks it will help him on the campaign trail when he travels the country boasting that he had been exonerated after the latest partisan witch hunt. but he nurses resentment over the red mark about to be tattooed on his page in the history books. as only the third president in history to be impeached. joining our conversation is our longtime political analyst and veteran journalist jonathan altar. curt pall bardella, jonathan allen, ron klain, and joyce vance, the few, the proud, the brave. mr. alter, i haven't seen you in a long time. i want to get you on the record with what we have just witnessed today and on where you think we're headed. >> this is what accountability feels like, and this is what the process is supposed to do. i actually think it's an night. we are about to hold this criminal president accountable. you know, you see the signs curb your dog.
we're cushing him. a leash is about to be put on him, a collar. does that mean he's going to be removed from office? no. but he is being called to account. there is a reckoning that is taking place and it's a very positive thing for this country. >> let me hold you to that and let me quote again the work of maggie and peter. are you going to be cool with it when -- you heard him do it right after the mueller report came out. he got the attorney general, total exoneration, are you going to be cool with him? he has been completely cleared, exonerated, in fact t' a badge of honor? >> of course he's going to say is that. that's what he says about everything. that won't be a surprise. remember, we have a great economy going on right now. he should be at about 65% in the polls. he's at about 41%. most of the country isn't buying it any more. they know that he doesn't tell the truth.
he doesn't have credibility when he calls it a witch-hunt. his 25% solid support will say, yeah, it's a witch-hunt. the other 15%, we like the economy, we're not so sure it's a witch-hunt. most people get something bad took place here. if a democratic president had done this, you can bet the republicans would have been all over him. a and, by the way, in hunter biden had done something so terrible, and joe biden, why didn't they investigate when they had complete control of the congress? hunter biden went on that board years ago. if this was so terrible, so in need of investigation, why didn't they do it? it was trumped up, brian, so that he could go out on the campaign and after zelensky made this announcement, he could then have his crowds chant, lock him up about joe biden. and then he would do just what they did to hillary clinton with those emails. he would take that all the ways to the election that biden was a crook. and that was a message that the
ukrainians might have helped him drive. he can't do that any more. >> ron crane, let me posit 24. i can mike an argument. it's donald trump who owns the biden's family story now, that everything we know about burisma and hunter, including what may be his monthly salary as a board member, may not. everything we know we've learned from the other side. let me further posit that joe biden doesn't have an answer that is serviceable, that he can return to, and this has been the source of much of the trauma, the biden campaign has been suffering and will continue to until they finalize an answer. >> i think that's just completely wrong, brian. first fs all you can hunter biden sat down for an interview with abc where he answered every single question about this. he has answered the questions. as for the vice-president, you know, he also answered questions the last two debates about this, and on the stump, when he gets asked by journalists.
not so much by voters. they see what this is. they see this is just an effort by trump to distract from his misconduct, from what he did wrong just as jonathan was saying a second ago, about the fact if the house republicans are so concerned about this, they could have done something about it. they aren't because it's fake, it's phony and this is trump's effort to distract from the conduct. as for the vice-president and his campaign, i think there are two things. one, the hearings in the house intelligence committee featured trump appointees. one after the other saying vice-president biden did his job, not democrats, republican trump appointees acknowledging the vice-president did his job on ukraine appropriately. i think it's a great credit to the vice-president and how had he handled it and the political ramifications. he's doing just fine in the polls and in the campaign. i think democratic voters see this for what it is. a smear job by the president, an effort to distract from his own
misconduct and wrongdoing. >> rick wilson, the same question. including the suggestion, my assertion that the story of the bidens has been stolen by one donald trump. >> i think ron is largely correct on this, that they are starting to push bianack on it. i think it is incumbent for them to focus on 2020 which is a referendum on trump. i think they are showing righteous anger the way he has gone after hunter biden has benefited him. it is a risk factor biden presents to him. you have to constantly be on offense against trump. you can never try to defend yourself or get your message out or try to clarify. you have to go back up into his grill. you have to keep kicking -- the minute you start attacking trump, you have to stay at it. republicans learned that lesson the hard way in 2016 where they would go on stage with one
canned trump joke. he would do his insult comic thing for half an hour. so you've got to always be on him. biden, it is incumbent on biden to keep turning his back on trump and back on him. >> our guests are going to stay with us. anyone i didn't get to i will get to in the next segment. we're going to fit in another break. our conversation continues on the other side. ♪
the defense or excuse is that president trump wanted to investigate corruption. that's just laughable on its face. if you want -- if president trump wanted to investigate corruption, he can start at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. look in the mirror. or he could look around the cast of criminals that have been indicted from his circle. >> a little louisiana common sense from eye member of congress tonight. the "the new york times" reporting the trump campaign thinks impeachment is helping with voter enthusiasm. annie carn ee and our friend maggie haberman report it this way. while mr. trump has ruled the fact that impeachment might tarnish his legacy, his top
political advisors presented the unfoeding proceeding as nothing but a boost to the campaign and every metric it measures from volunteer recruitment to small donor donations, it lit up our base, mr. pascual said. they see the vote as trying to be stolen from the 2016 election. remaining with us, the few, the proud, the brave. jonathan allen, rick wilson, ron klein and joyce vance. joyce, counselor, is there a rabbit on the legal side that the democrats can pull out of the hat in the well of the senate, including but not limited to witnesses' tactics that perhaps we haven't thought of or isn't being discussed at this stage? >> you know, the real problem that the republicans have is that the time to come up with that defense is already passed. so when these allegations first surfaced, they should have come forward with the defense, whatever it was.
anything that comes up this late in the game looks manufactured. and we've seen that happen along the path as trump began to try and float trial balloons like the fact that he withheld aid because the europeans weren't paying their fair share which, of course, is not true. or the defense that you previewed here, this sort of notion that he withheld aid because he was concerned about corruption, which, of course, flies in the face of the fact that in 2017 and 2018 trump gave aid there was no concern what joe biden did in ukraine while he was there when, in fact, many republicans signed on and applauded what he was doing. most importantly, they didn't make any effort to investigate hunter biden until joe biden was on the verge of announcing his candidacy. so the time line works against trump. and coming up with new defenses at this stage, as you say in the well of the senate, will look like exactly what it is, trying
to manufacture an excuse after the fact for what was clearly an effort to subvert the election with bribery and with the effort to engage a foreign country in one of our elections. >> jonathan allen, we've established it's late. no one watching at home can hear you. give me a straight-up prediction how many democrats are pulled over to the other side in the house and give me a ballpark prediction on the final senate vote. >> well, this will end up in a clip on someone's website at some point. you know, at the risk of that, look, i think you're talking about no more than mid single digits of defections of democrats. they're at a point now, you saw the two that voted against their party in the house when this moved forward. for most of these democrats, they felt comfortable then that they would probably vote for impeachment. each of them, even in difficult
districts, knows that they risk losing their base core democratic voters, you know, if they are to vote against impeachment at this point. that there will be plenty of people happy to go out and vote against donald trump and then not vote for their house member if that house member has not voted to impeach him. as far as the senate goes, who knows what information will come out. i do want to address something real quick, brian. i think there is an unexplored piece of this that hasn't been talked about. the president's argument -- one of his arguments, one of his many arguments on this has been the ukraine never knew that he was withholding the money. most of us sort of take that as ridiculous. obviously they knew, there was testimony about that. if he was in fact interested in corruption in ukraine and wanted to withhold money from ukraine to see if there were reforms there, the first thing he would have done was told ukraine. he also would have told congress that he was doing that, and he would have said it publicly.
he would have said, i'm withholding this $391 million until i see the reforms that i want in ukraine because that would have been perfectly appropriate to leverage that money for reforms in ukraine if it was broadly about corruption and not about joe biden and not about that crowd strike russian disinformation campaign. it is unusual that he would make the argument that ukraine didn't know because what it does is it shows that he wanted to keep a secret here. it is one of the many things that shows that. it's really been unexplored because it has president been treated as a serious argument by a lot of people in terms of the president having wanted to not tell ukraine. but i think it goes to the motivation there because obviously you could make that trade legally and you would want them to know. >> well, thank you for getting that on the rhoecord because th point did come up today. curt, final question for you. if you're talking about ukraine
it's because joe and the bidens. we talk about joe biden because he is the front runner. have the bidens missed an opportunity here in any stage of this? >> i think they've missed an opportunity in defining the relationship -- >> the biden camp. >> the biden camp, the family. they've missed an opportunity of defining for the morn people really the introduction of the biden family in the political context. so far it's been all trump's side of it and the republican side that we're hearing. when you allow other people to define for you what the relationship was, what activities were happening, even if they're flat-outlying about it. right now they're hearing one side of what happened and one interpretation of what happened. i think at some point very soon, once we get through the actual impeachment process, biden as a candidate is going to have to stand on the stage and explain thoroughly what actually happened with his son. does he agree with what happened? is there something he'd like to see differently unfold? and i think he will do that. i think we're seeing the first stage was the indignant anger we
saw from biden. it was a good thing that biden showed that emotion. the one thing that the vice-president has in his favor here versus trump is a reservoir of good will with the american people. people view him as authentic, as genuine, as trustworthy. this is a time that's going to come in handy what he puts out there what he thinks his son did. all he has to do is repeat the words his son has said. you know what, i showed some bad judgment. if he says that, this thing moves on and trump will not be able to spend the next year relentlessly trying to paint joe biden's son as some sort of criminal. i think that's what we'll see. people in california are watching now, brian. the bills and karens out there are paying attention. >> absolutely right. it's not 12:43 a.m. in california. our thanks to our wonderful slate of guests agreeing to stay up way too late here on the east coast after midnight. jonathan alter, curt, rick wilson, ron klain and joyce vance. coming up, fresh from his
recent trip, fact finding, you remember, in ukraine, rudy giuliani is back on camera, back to talking about what he thinks about the fbi, of all things, of all people. when this special edition of our broadcast continues. ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪
i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ for a limited time, get a outb4-course meal your holidays even better! starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! and now, get a $10 gift with every $50 in gift cards. why do wrinkles happen at the worst times?
you may have heard just a mention of this. president trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani has recently returned from a fact-finding trip to ukraine. he was conducting interviews, you see, as part of his investigation into, wait for it, the bidens. during an interview earlier today, giuliani had this to say about the fbi. >> the fbi and law enforcement has become intimidated by the press. they're afraid of the press. so unless i'm a courageous prosecutor, i know that if i investigate rudy giuliani, "the new york times" is going to love it.
>> back with us, maya wiley for the southern district of new york. what do you make of that? >> i make of that a man who knows the fbi and knows that worrying about the press is not something the fbi does when it's conducting an investigation >> why would he say a thing like that? >> because he has been the person who has been a recidivist. i know it's a -- let's face it. there is literally an investigation in the context of the impeachment of the president for the very kind of conduct that rudy giuliani has now gone back to doing, and rudy giuliani himself -- himself is apparently under investigation for his connections and work in ukraine in his own right. so, again, it's almost like he's
ripping a page out of donald trump's play book, which is distract, distract, distract. >> as our friend ron popiel made famous, wait, there's more. do we have the article on lev? t "wall street journal" has been reporting he has gone back to court and said, this guy should have his bail revoked. he hill a million bucs from a russian account that went to his wife. reminds me of the old jim croce song, people have to learn this lesson. you don't tug on superman's cape, you don't spit in the wind, you don't lie to the feds. if you can help it, withhold information from the feds because this guy could be in even more trouble now. >> oh, absolutely. not to mention that this is, this is a man who said, i can't afford 200. i can barely pay the $200,000 i have to put down for bail. then he has a million? i mean, that is --
>> that's how people view this. >> that's how people view it. and remember that prosecutors make decisions about whether or not they want to deal with you or whether they're just going to throw the book at you. and these are the kinds of behaviors that make them say, yeah, deal -- maybe we're just going to pick up our big book which is getting heavier and heavier and throw it at you. >> boy, that's chilling. it's real-world stuff. >> just real-world stuff because you don't make deals with people you can't trust to tell you the truth. >> maya wiley, thank you. always a pleasure. >> thank you. >> coming up for us, thursday was a history-making day in the united kingdom. what happens there next is a big question. we'll go there live right after this. united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.
thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell
and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we want you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. all: the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.
♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be. midnight eastern time which makes this friday, which makes the proper greeting good morning from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. it's now the start of day 1,058 of this trump administration here on the east coast, the final friday 13th of the decade. look at it that way. the breaking news this hour, a surprise, sudden end to the house judiciary committee marathon debate on the articles of impeachment against president donald trump. the committee wrapped up suddenly just a short time ago without taking the vote that would have sent the articles to the house floor. the chairman,