tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC December 12, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am PST
♪ 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, jerry nadler of new york choosing to speak with
his gavel. >> it has been a long two days and it is now late at night. i want the members on both sides to think about what has happened over the last two days and to search their consciences before we cast our final votes therefore the committee will now stand this recession until tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. at which point -- >> whoa. >> i will move to divide the question so that each of us may have the opportunity to cast up-or-down votes on each of the articles of impeachment and let history be our judge the committee is in recess. >> to stress it is a surprise. while the chairman had the right to do he did violate rules of common courtesy republicans then blasted nadler for the late night surprise. >> what chairman nadler did and
the rest said nothing, this is why they don't like it. they want the prime time hit. this is speaker pelosi and adam schiff and the others directing this committee. i don't have a chairman anymore. this committee has lost all relevance. i'll see y'all tomorrow. >> that came after, by the way congressman collins said he was at a loss for words. it began yesterday and continued into the night. republicans offered up a series of amendments and the day was filled with fierce sparring between democrats 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 and 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 was, in fact, conspicuously using public office and public money for public and private desires. >> democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections, such as the right 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. >> and i don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues. i know the president is working real hard to solve those throughout the country, but it's a little hard to believe that burisma hired hunter biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car. >> that was enough for one democratic committee member who pointed out gaetz's own past arrest for dui, which then brought a plea for the panel to stay focused on the business at hand. >> i would say that the pot 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 any 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. >> there are issues for the election, and then there are issues for this committee. the behavior of vice president biden's son and, frankly, the 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, again congressman johnson was refereeing to matt gaetz, his arrest 11 years ago indeed in florida 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 did not 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 -- >> he didn't ask for corruption in the -- >> 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 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 hadn't brought up joe biden? >> i think the call is fine as it is. >> 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 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 democrats never mention this at their phony hearing. in all 31 house democrats 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 called it hopelessly partisan. another like something you would see in third world nations. your money wasted. your priorities ignored. >> indeed, nbc news is reporting that house democrats are now
actively trying to convince vulnerable democrats to come over on to their their side to oppose the impeachment articles. according to one source, republicans are focusing on upwards of eight democrats who have indicated they may be undecided. earlier today speaker pelosi was 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 conclusion. they've seen the facts as presented and the intelligence committee have seen the constitution as they know it. they take an oath to protect and defend it, but they see the constitutional experts speak about it. they'll make their own decisions. i don't say anything to them. >> 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. and, sean, it wouldn't surprise me if we got one or two democrats. this is a really weak case, and that's why i think you're going to see bipartisan opposition to the articles over in the house. >> here for our lead-off discussion on an early friday morning, my what wiley, former u.s. assistant attorney for the southern district of new york now 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 forthcoming 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 to joe biden who these days is an informal advisor 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. and, you know, you had peter baker on before. he is the expert on the clinton impeachment. i was in the clinton white house then. 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. >> curt, 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 who is a member of the judiciary committee 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. we want people to see what we're doing. it's a vote on impeachment. so i think here from eric this real sentiment 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, in front of the american people during daylight hours when people are paying attention and awake. 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 just 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 up there complaining that this move was about getting tv cameras and this move was 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 resuming at 10:00 a.m., 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 whether they had the vote tonight or 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 curt'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 and certainly for a long time includes ron and curt and garrett earlier tonight, we know that the thing that gets talked about most as 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 that 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 the 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 because that would insult histrionic drama queens. but this 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 they are very 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 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. we're going to learn the defenses the republicans mounted in the house were all bs. we're going to learn there's a lot more here under the surface. as i like to describe with trump 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. >> the gentleman will be recognized when i'm ready. maya wiley -- >> you're coming to me after that? >> no, well this, touches on a legal conversation you and i were having, having nothing to do with icebergs, junk or histrionics, and the fact-gathering process that continues -- >> yes. >> -- beneath the surface of the water to go with the iceberg. >> yes. the fact -- so, first of all, 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, yeah, 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. and as we've seen and as we know, adam schiff has said we continue to investigate. is there sufficient evidence? absolutely. have we seen a congress 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. i mean, they can't -- it's interesting. today the republicans -- we often see in politics, oh, this proceed something a circus. usually you're talking about the other side. republicans in 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. they 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 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. these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow
customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!
foreign interference. that takes power away from the american people. >> this president has chosen to put his personal interest ahead of the national interest. >> no president has ever, ever, ever obstructed congress in the manner that we've seen from president trump. >> the president abused his power and is a continuing threat not only to democracy, but to our national security. >> 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 that it will help him on the campaign trail when he travels the country boasting
that he has 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 american history to be impeached. joining our conversation is our longtime political analyst and veteran journalist jonathan altar. still with us tonight, curt bardella, jonathan allen, ron klain, and joyce vance, the few, the proud, the brave. mr. alter, "a," i haven't seen you in a long time. "b," you're new to this conversation tonight. i want to get you on the record 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 inspiring night. we're about to hold this criminal president accountable. you see those signs, curb your dog. we're curbing 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's being called to account. there's a reckoning that's taking place and it's a 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 after the mueller report came out. he got air cover from his attorney general. total exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction. are you going to be cool with him saying he has been completely cleared, exonerated, in fact, it's a badge of honor? >> of course he's going to say that. that's what he says about everything. so that won't be a surprise. but, remember, we have a great economy going on. he should be at 65% in the polls. he's at about 41%. most of the country isn't buying it anymore. 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. another 15% will be, we like the economy, we're not sure it's a witch-hunt. most people get that something bad took place here. that if a democratic president had done this you can bet the republicans would have been all over him and, by the way, if hunter biden had done something terrible, why didn't they investigate when they had complete control of the congress? hunter biden went on the board years ago. if this was so terrible, 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 way 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 anymore. >> ron klain, let me posit this.
i could make an argument that it's donald trump who owns the bidens' 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 of all, hunter biden sat down for a long interview with abc where he answered every single question about this. so he's been -- he has answered the questions. as for the vice president, 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 that 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 that if the house republicans were so concerned, they could have done something about it. they aren't because it's fake, it's phony, and this is a trump effort to distract from his own conduct. as for its impact on 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 that's a great credit to the vice president and how he handled this and in terms of its political ramifications the vice president is doing just fine, thank you very much, 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 his own wrongdoing. >> rick wilson, 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've started to push back on it, but i do think it's incumbent upon them to keep returning the focus on what 2020 has to be, which is a referendum on trump. and i think joe biden showing some righteous anger about the way trump has gone after hunter biden has benefited him somewhat politically and it continues to illustrate the risk factor trump seems to feel that biden presents to him. i will say, though, that you got to constantly be on offense with trump. you can never try to defend yourself or try to get your message out or try to clarify. you always have to go back right up into his grill. you always 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, and then he would do his insult comic thing for a half an hour, so
you got to be always on him. and i think that biden -- it's incumbent upon biden to keep turning this back onto trump and turning the attack back on to him. >> our guests are all 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.
investigate corruption. now, that's just laughable on its face. if you want -- if president trump wanted to investigate corruption, he could 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 a member of congress tonight. "the new york times" reporting the trump campaign thinks impeachment is helping with voter enthusiasm. annie karni and our friend, maggie haberman, report it this way. while mr. trump himself has ruled the fact that impeachment might tarnish his legacy, his political advisers presented the unfolding proceeding as nothing but a boost to the campaign in every metric it measures from volunteer recruitment. remaining with us, the few, the proud, the brave, jonathan
alter, kurt bardella, jonathan allen, rick wilson, ron klain, and joyce vance. joyce, counselor, is there a rabbit on the legal side that the democrats can pull out of a 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 has already passed. so when these allegations first surfaced, they should have come forward with the defense, whatever it was. anything that comes up 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 he withheld aid because the europeans weren't paying their fair share, which, of course, is not true or the defense 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, that there was no concern about what joe biden was doing in ukraine while he was there, that, in fact, many republicans in congress signed on and applauded what he was doing. and i think most importantly that 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 just 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. >> 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 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, it's too early to predict how a
senate trial goes. who knows what other information comes out. but i do want to address kg real quick, brian, which is i do think there's an unexplored piece of this that hasn't been talked about, which is the president's argument, one of the many arguments on this has been that the ukraine never knew that he was withholding the money and most of us take that as ridiculous. obviously, they knew. there was testimony about that but if, in fact, he was 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 it and he would have said it publicly, 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 crowdstrike russian
disinformation campaign. and it is very unusual that he would make the argument that ukraine didn't know because what it does is it shows he wanted to keep a secret here. it's one of the many things that shows that. it's really been unexplored because it hasn't been treated as a serious argument by a lot of people. but 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. >> thank you for getting that on the record because that point did come up more than once for us. curt, final question for you. if we're talking about ukraine, it's because of 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 biden campaign, the family, they missed an opportunity of
defining for the american people, really, the introduction of the biden family in the political context. so far it's just been all trump's side of it and the republicans' side of it. when you allow others to define for you what the relationship was, what activities were happening, even if they're flat out lying about it, right now they're only hearing one side of what happened and one interpretation of what happened. 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 else he would like to see unfold and i think he will do that. we're seeing the first stage really was the indignant anger we saw from biden. i agreed with it was a good thing that biden showed that emotion. the one thing that the vice president has in his favor versus trump is a reservoir of good will with the american people. people view him as authentic, as genuine, as trustworthy. 24 is the time where that's going to come in handy as he puts out there what he thinks what his son did and all he has
to do is repot the words his son did, you know what, i showed some bad judgment. if he says that, this thing moves on and trump will not be able to paint the next year relentlessly as joe biden's son as some sort of criminal. so i think that's what we'll see. people in california are watching right now, brian, for the bills and karens out there paying attention. >> it's not 12:43 a.m. in california. our thanks to our guests for agreeing to stay up way too late on the east coast after midnight. jonathan alter, kurt bardella, rick wilson, ron klain, and joyce vance. coming up for us, fresh from his recent trip, fact-finding, 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.
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, former assistant u.s. attorney 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 that's a word we use. >> that's a big word and it's late at night for you to be throwing around that many syllables. >> but let's face it, if there's literally an investigation, in this case, in the context of 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 playbook, which is distract, distract, distract. >> as our friend, ron pope heel made famous, but wait, there's more. do we have the headline of the article on lev? "the wall street journal" has been reporting that rudy friend lev parnas, the southern district of new york has gone
back to court and said this guy should have his bail revoked. he hid a million bucks from a russian account that went to his wife. reminds me of the old jim croce song. people got to learn this lesson. you don't tug on superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind. you don't lie to the feds. you don't, 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 a man who said i can't afford -- i can barely pay the $200,000 i have to put down for bail. then he has a million? i mean, that's -- >> 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. >> that's 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. 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. i'm a tailgater tailgating to get to my tailgate.
but you're so busy watching me tailgate that you don't see the one in front of you. and if you cheaped out on your car insurance... well, it might not pay for this. so be better protected with allstate thank you very much. i don't want to tempt fate because clearly lots of results are still coming in and we're still only dealing with projections. but at this stage, it does look as though this one nation conservative government has been given a powerful new mandate. [ cheers ] to get brexit done. >> nice touch having unzipping
elmo there behind him. british prime minister boris johnson celebrating his party and its apparent victory erase apparent victory at the polls a short time ago. exit polls showing johnson remaining at 10 downing street, picking up a much larger majority inside parliament. a look at the morning papers from the uk, the left-leaning "daily mirror" declares nightmare before christmas, "guardian" predicting, on the right it says rejoice, boris set for thumping win. bbc reporting the torys are planning a ferocious acceleration in efforts to get brexit done to crash england out of the eu. jeremy corbyn also spoke out after the resounding win for johnson, announcing, quote, i will not lead the party in any future general election. luckily for him, the party probably would have arrived at that same conclusion. up early for us in london with
the very latest is our own cal perry. cal, i've got to say, it appears from here, like most of the charges of malpractice are going right to the left, right to jeremy corbyn. this is from larry sabato at the university of virginia, mind you. just one question for labour, how could you have been stupid enough to think jeremy corbyn could ever win a general election? and that's the question that pays tonight, cal. >> reporter: yeah, and they're saying it is the worst defeat since 1935 and a lot has happened in europe since 1935. and they're blaming, as you said, jeremy corbyn. he is an incredibly unpopular leader. on the scale of popularity, he was at a minus 44, and that's what people are talking about. we're here in itv news headquarters. this is election hq. and at 5:45 in the morning it is what you would expect, weary and
dreary staff. the polls were wrong, brian, not a surprise there. i suppose if you look at recent election history, boris johnson's party was supposed to win somewhere between 300 and 330 seats. it's looking right now like around 360. as you said, brexit is basically a done deal now. january 31st, the uk will crash out. the question now is what are the more reverberating effects? scotland, snp right now, scotland national party, 45 seats. there will likely be a referendum on scottish independence in the coming year. so the story here is partly what will happen to the united kingdom? you mentioned jeremy corbyn. take a look at what a landslide looks like, what an earthquake election looks like. steve kornacki will be very jealous. we're talking about these swings here. it looks like what you would see in the u.s. in, for example, 2010 when we had the house seats swing away from democrats. that's what happened. and the geography is similar to what we see in the u.s. we're talking about london was a place where labour did well, but
in the countryside the conservatives made major gains. this is one of those elections where you redraw the map in the united kingdom. again, i can't put a fine enough point on this. the maps in your children's bedrooms are likely going to be wrong by next year if scotland splits away. that's going to be the story in the morning papers. one other thing worth mentioning, the press here in this country, the attitude, the environment of this election was incredibly ugly. and boris johnson tapped into a simple message, get brexit done. you heard him finishing his speech adult. get brexit done. a lot of people said it was dull, a lot of people said it was a simple message, it worked. >> boy, of course saying that and doing that, as you point out, cal, perhaps two very different things. a lot of questions about scotland, even some fears that the troubles could start back up in the north. cal perry in the itv newsroom tonight where they are just coming off, again, an endless election night. cal, thank you for your reporting. that's going to do it for our