tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC December 3, 2019 1:00am-2:00am PST
donors do want it and they enjoy what he brings to the table as a trump surrogate. he ticks off the right people and they love that. that is what conservatism is. that's all for "all in". next "the 11th hour". tonight our look at what the white house will and won't be doing this week. plus why attorney general barr might denounce an upcoming report from his own justice department, perhaps because it might clear some of the same people the president has been attacking nonstop. and senator john, no rerelation, kennedy, goes deep on the republican talking points for a second week in a row. all evidence to the contrary
as we start a post-thanksgiving week, good evening once again from our msnbc headquarters in new york. this new week brings a new phase of the democrats' drive toward impeachment. it's been 70 days now since speaker pelosi first opened the inquiry into trump's conduct toward ukraine once the link to investigating the bidens was publicly established. tonight one house committee prepares to give way to another. members of the intelligence committee will send their report over to the house judiciary committee. that committee will in turn hold its first impeachment hearing on wednesday morning. four law professors are expected to testify about the historical and constitutional basis for impeachment hearings without anyone present from the trump white house. yesterday white house lawyers told jerry nadler, democrat of new york, quote, we do not intend to participate in your
wednesday hearing. nadler has given the white house until 6th of december this friday to decide whether it will take part in any aspect of this impeachment process. earlier on this network, the chair of the intelligence committee, california democrat adam schiff, said his colleagues will continue to investigate issue subpoenas if need be and he confirmed the intel committee report will, in fact, be made public tomorrow. it's a long document. members started reading it today. they'll be reading it throughout the day tomorrow. and essentially, it outcomes in considerable detail a scheme that began actually well before
the recall of ambassador yovanovitch, and was designed to further two political objectives of the president. if we learn information that will build on what we already know, we will file a supplemental report from the judiciary committee. meanwhile, new reporting from "the washington post" says democrats are weighing whether to expand articles of impeachment to include obstruction of justice or other high crimes as outlined originally in the mueller report. late this afternoon, republican members of house intel oversight and foreign affairs committees got a jump on the news by releasing their own 123-page minority report in effect that contends, no impeachable offenses have been established. the president who is now in london for this week's nato summit said he read the republicans' document on the way and wrote, quote, great job. radical left has no case. can go to the supreme court to stop? before leaving the white house this morning, the president slammed democrats for moving forward with impeachment hearings while he's out of the country. >> the democrats, the radical left democrats, the do-nothing
democrats decided when i'm going to nato -- this was set up a year ago -- that when i go to nato, that was the exact time this is one of the most important journeys that we make as president. >> then there is this from president zelensky of ukraine. in a new "time" magazine article titled i don't trust anyone at all. he says regarding his july 25 phone call with donald trump, quote, i never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. that's not my thing. i don't want us to look like beggars. but you have to understand, we're at war. if you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. i think that's just about fairness. trump quickly put his own spin on that quote, writing, quote, the president of ukraine has just again announced that president trump has done nothing wrong with respect to ukraine and our interactions or calls. and later, thank you to
president zelensky, case over. there was also news regarding the two indicted associates of trump lawyer rudy giuliani, lev and igor, remember them? they are accused of funneling foreign money to u.s. political candidates. lev for his part was in court here in new york on this snowy day. nbc news reports his lawyer told the court he is willing to speak with congressional impeachment investigators. the feds also say they've seized thousands of pieces of evidence from the two men as well as other defendants. and it appears likely they will soon file additional charges in this case. one more item tonight as the impeachment gathers momentum. a new controversy may be developing over the upcoming justice department's internal inspector general report on the fbi's russia investigation. tonight "the washington post"
reports attorney general bill barr is disputing a key finding in the report that the fbi had enough information july 2016 to open an inquiry into members of the trump campaign. with all that in mind, here with us for our lead-off discussion on a monday night, kimberly atkins, wbur, boston's npr news station, robert costa, moderator on washington week, and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence. welcome to you all. i would like to start with you, bob, specifically, the state of the play in the building you cover, the us capitol as members of said congress filter in after their thanksgiving break. >> so far most democrats that i'm speaking with at "the washington post" feel pretty comfortable with the process. some of them more progressive members in their age are wishing that this impeachment probe could be a little bit wider in scope. and they're making that clear to the leadership that maybe they should go after things beyond ukraine. but the leadership is telling them essentially this is what it's going to be, we're trying
to move this to a senate trial through judiciary committee as soon as possible. the thing that comes up again and again is speaker pelosi is in control. she has chairman schiff and chairman nadler working day to day with her and on the same page trying to wrap this up as soon as possible so it can move on to the senate. >> kim, as our friend frank figliuzzi has speculated and reminded us, it looks like this lev matter in court today has been the subject of a whole lot of surveillance, kind of a kaleidoscopic 360 degree view if it involves both electronics and the electronic devices themselves and so on. kim, what does this do, not just to rudy giuliani, but rudy's coveted role as the president's, quote, unquote, tv lawyer.
>> yeah. i mean, we will have to see what this information is. lev parnas has indicated through his attorney that he is willing to participate and cooperate with the impeachment probe. we've seen today from the gop's prebuttal of the report that's coming out of the intelligence committee tomorrow there's already an effort to distance the president from rudy giuliani. it seems clear that republicans, even though they're saying nothing was wrong, that they see that whatever was possibly wrong probably had to do with rudolph giuliani. and if parnas has information and evidence among this potential trove from his court case that links trump directly to whatever giuliani was doing, what was described by the 12 witnesses as carrying out this you counter -- this shadow diplomacy in an effort to pressure ukraine, that will be a
big problem and it blows a big hole in the republicans' defense of this. so he is emerging as as a key player not only in his criminal trial but in the impeachment mayor. >> let's say you're one of the leaders of the nato nations arriving in london. and over the course of this day you've watched zelensky give an interview and say one thing, and then trump in effect misquotes him and tweets another. what are you thinking about with your brief one-on-one meeting with the american president of what this may mean? >> for one thing, this is about the degree to which our allies can trust us. and trust has got to be a major obstacle right now in our allied relationships. so imagine a situation where anything that comes out of our president's mouth might get changed in the next minute, that night in a tweet, and can't be
relied upon by our most trusted allies. in fact, just recently he's gone from saying, you know, nato allies need to pay up more, they're not paying their fair share. and, of course, you just played a clip where he said his travel to nato is among the most important trips a president can take. so which is it? we don't know how to read him. they don't know thousand read him, and it makes us vulnerable and compromises our stature in the world. >> robert costa, walk us through two things, the timetable of impeachment, what their target date is to have a floor vote in the house, and question number two, how much are they tempted to turn this into a christmas tree and attach high crimes and misdemeanors that go back to the mueller get and didn't get enough airing in the public square. >> there is a lot of temptation now from democrats who are more on the left side of the spectrum to expand this entire process. they feel like they're on a track right now following the public hearings where they're digging into this administration and they feel like many of these officials are opening up in a new way that they haven't seen in two and a half years. at the same time they know there's so much of president trump's conduct they would like to bring under the spotlight, but to move this through in time to have a trial that gets
through the senate and doesn't dominate the early part of the 2020 why the democratic presidential candidates where trying to gather steam, they know they have to move forward. the consensus i'm seeing in my reporting is democrats will move the impeachment process between now and christmas and hanukkah holiday and the new year, maybe it trips into the new year. but they're going to eventually move by the latest mid-january inside of the house. speaker pelosi will continue to encourage investigations of president trump and his administration on other fronts. but the impeachment process rides on the ukraine issue more than anything else. >> kimberly, you're a lawyer and i'm not. the case that holds the keys to whether don mcgahn can or would or should come and testify before the house got a boost at the federal judge level today. what do you think the chances are that we will see don mcgahn raise his right hand and get sworn in and/or is this a game
of beat the clock still and it's going to run out of time? >> i think there will be an attempt to run out the clock as much as possible on that sentence. i wouldn't count on seeing don mcgahn or any other white house official anytime soon while that makes its way to the supreme court. but what this does do is add even more pressure from some democrats in the house to what bob was talking about, this idea that, hey, there is more information to be gathered. some democrats want all the facts. they want to make more of an effort to press these officials to come forward and testify. and they're saying that there is time for them to do that. but again, speaker pelosi is moving forward, but this is just one of many factors that could be causing division among democrats about how exactly to proceed and what to include in the formal impeachment inquiry. >> two different things, the ig report at the fbi and susan page. on the ig report, there are veterans of the organization no doubt looking forward to it because they know it will clear them, their names, and their
behavior as government employees. what if the attorney general comes out and says, we're going to diminish the report, i can't change it, but i can talk it down, i can take a notch out of it. number two, the matter of the strucken page, the two people whose story we heard the president in flowery terms kind of relitigated his rallies. >> look, we've all been worried about this attorney general and see consistent ability to ignore facts. if it's true, if this reporting is true that he is going to side against his own inspector general and side with the president, he will, again, be choosing to ignore a neutral fact finder and come up with his own set of alternative truth. the problem with that is, that's not what the attorney general is supposed to do. in fact, he will disgrace his office if he chooses to ignore the facts developed by his own inspector general.
destructive attorney general than if vladimir putin had appointed barr himself. with regard to lisa page, the fbi lawyer, look, she exercised incredibly poor judgment. we all know the facts. she used fbi devices to text peter strzok, the fbi senior official she was having an affair with. they architect personal political opinions. strzok was fired. lisa page left the fbi. but what we're seeing right now is the president using it to attack this person who was a public servant, decided to make this her career and attack her simply because she was doing her job. if the ig report comes out and says they did nothing wrong, and all that the special counsel found, if that's the case, trump needs to shut that down. but he's going to continue to attack this woman simply because she did her job.
>> lisa page, a lot to talk about. the week is just getting started. our thanks to kimberly atkins, robert costa, to frank figliuzzi for starting us off tonight. coming up for us, our next guest, the author of a new book on the subject of impeachment says the president's impeachment strategy shows he fears the truth and just might lack a good defense for his words and actions. and later, why the u.k.'s prime minister is trying to keep his distance from donald trump during this week's nato meeting as "the 11th hour" is just getting started on this monday night.
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!
to the surprise of no one who was able to fog up a mirror, the trump white house will not participate in this week's judiciary committee hearing on impeachment. today bob bower, who served as white house counsel under president obama wrote an op-ed in "the new york times" titled "trump is the founders' worst nightmare." trump has refused all cooperation with the house and
lies repeatedly about the facts, holds public rallies to spread these falsehoods and attacks the credibility, motives, and even patriotism of witnesses. his mode of argument is purely assaultive. this is the crux of the trump defense and not an argument built on facts in support of a constitutional theory of the case. let's talk about all of it tonight with neal katyal, veteran of the justice department, former acting solicitor general for our government during the obama administration, a man who has argued 39 cases before the u.s. supreme court and just happens to be the author of a new book not yet one week old. it is called "impeach: the case against trump." counselor it raises an interesting question. aside from sound and fury and a jacketless jim jordan in the hallway, when will the republicans, when will the
president's team need a fact-based rejoinder strategy, defense? >> i think they're going to soon. the nato summit is just getting underway. we're watching president trump there with other world leaders that he'll be meeting with throughout the next couple of days. marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance right now. the president is at a meeting as you see there with nato secretary-general. and he'll be having a bi-lat later in the day with the french president macron. let's take a listen. >> many times. i think he's doing a fantastic job. i'm a big fan. his contract was extended. i was happy about. that you're doing a fantastic job. we appreciate it. i think the secretary-general told you that through some work
and some negotiation we've increased the budgets of countries other than the usa because we're paying far more than anybody else and far more even as a percentage of gdp. but we've increased the numbers that other countries obtained by $130 billion. it was going down for close to 20 years if you look at a chart with a roller coaster down. and i was going on for a long time. you wouldn't have had a nato if you kept going that way. and now we really increased it incredibly well. and happy to have helped. but the secretary has been looking to do that for a long time. i can tell you he's very happy about it. and just generally we're going to i have a very big couple of days. am very big, very important. we have tremendous spirit as it pertains to nato. i would think for one country. and we'll be talking to that
country. we'll see how it works out. and actually country has a couple points. the points are very devastating to nato. we'll find out about that next two days. and with that, i'd like to introduce the secretary-general to say a few words, please. >> thank you very much, mr. president. it goods to see you again. and i'm looking forward to celebrate the 70th anniversary of our alliance together with world leaders today and tomorrow. we are making real progress, most importantly on the burden sharing. and your leadership on defense spending is having a real impact. since 2016, canada and allies have $130 billion more to the defense budgets this number will increase to $400 billion u.s. dollars by 2024. this is unprecedented. this is making nato stronger.
and it shows that these alliances is responding when the world is changing. we will, of course, also address a wide range of issues including the fight against terrorism, arms control, our relationship with russia and china and most successful alliance in history because we have been able to change when that world is changing, that's what we're doing again. we are looking forward to working together for many decades. once again, thank you for your leadership and strong commitment to nato. the. >> i love your statement that we're able to change when the world is changing. do you have to do that. your original mission was somewhat different than it is now. the nato world is a lot more like that. but that's a very profound statement. it's a statement that everybody has to understand is very important. okay. thank you very much, everybody.
>> here in london, are you going to see prime minister johnson? >> i have no thoughts on it. it's going to be a very important election for this great country. but i have no thoughts on it. i will be meeting with him, yes. >> when will that be? >> i don't know. i don't have the scheduler here. i have many meetings. i have meetings set up with lots of different countries. >> mr. president, nato saying -- >> who said that? >> president macron. >> and turkey responded by saying he was brain dead which is interesting. now nato serves a great purpose. it got to be unfair for the united states because the united states is paying a disproportion amount. i think that is insulting to a lot of different forces including the man that does a
very good job running nato. nato is becoming much more flexible in terms of what it looks at. i was very surprised. what do you thinkhe? made a statement about nato being brain dead. what did you think? >> that's not the case. nato is active. nato is agile and adopting and we have just implemented the law is reinforced. for the first time in our history, we have the eastern part of the alliance. you see how they're investing more and also high end capabilities and we're stepping off the point against terrorism and we're also addressing the security implications of the russia and china. the reality is these alliances have proven once again to be able to change and responding to changing world. so that is the reason why we're
a success. the ability to change. >> it's a tough statement. when you make a statement like that, that is a very, very, very nasty statement to essentially 28 including them, 28 countries. and i think that, you know, you have a very high unemployment rate in france. france is not doing well economically at all. they're starting to tax other people's products. so, therefore, we're going to tax them. that is taking place right now and technology and we're doing their lines and everything else. it's a tough statement to make when you have such difficulty in france. you look at what happened with the yellow vests or you look at what's going on during certain parts of their season. they had a very rough year. and you just can't go around making statements like that about nato. it's very disrespectful. >> the department of justice inspector general's report is due out soon. it's been reported that the
attorney general disagrees with that conclusion. do you agree with the attorney general barr? >> i just don't know. i just don't know. i haven't seen it. i purposely stay out of it. we have a great attorney general. he's a very fair man. he's a great gentleman. he didn't need this job. he took this job because he wanted to do something great for the country. as you know, he was a very successful man. he picked a great company to work for when he left. he picked a great company to work for. but he's a very successful man. he didn't need the job. he's doing a great job. i have not seen the report. perhaps he's read the report. i think he was quoted incorrectly. i do believe that. i'm hearing the report very powerful. i'm hearing that by reading lots of different things. not from insiders but from outsiders. i think all with very to do is wait. is there going to be released on monday? monday or so? i think we have to read it. and we have to see it. but i hear there is a lot of devastating things in that report. but we'll see what happens.
look, with very a few days to wait. we've been all waiting a long time. i do think the big report to wait for is going to be the durham report. that is the one that people are really waiting for. and he is highly respected. and he's worked very hard. he's worked long hours had, i can tell you. and he has gone all over the world. so we'll see. the durham report is the report that people are really looking forward to. but this is a very important report. the ig report is a very important report. if what i read is correct, i read it in the newspaper. if what i read is correct, that will be a little disappointing. that is one aspect of the report. we'll see what happens. we'll see. it's coming out in a few days. i hear it's devastating. but we'll soon find out. >> yes? >> how do you see nato coming
together as allies? >> i think the secretary-general has done a good job in bringing nato together. it's been unfair. the united states is paying 4% and some people could say 4.3% of the largest gdp there is in the world by far. because brought it to a level that nobody thought even possible. so we're paying 4 to 4.3% when germany is paying 1 to 1.2% max. of a much smaller gdp. that's not fair. and it's not fair also when you have the european union, many of these are the same countries, but you have the european union treating the united states very, very unfairly on trade. and the deficit for many, many years, for decades. but the deficit for many, many years has been astronomical with the united states and europe in their favor. and i'm changing that. i'm changing it fairly rapidly. it's not right to be taking advantage of nato and also then
to be taken advantage of on trade. we can't let that happen. we're talking to the european union and we're talking to various countries about nato. but we're talking about trade with the european union. they have to shape up. otherwise, things are going to get very tough. >> nato is the only place where north america and europe meet every day. we discuss the size and take actions together and respond to a wide wafrrange of security ths and challenges. we do that more now than we've done for many, many years. and it has been so clearly covered from the president trump. we need fair allies are stepping up. and we are also responding to new challenges in cyber, in space. we will declare space as new domain for nato. something we never had before. so it just highlights that,
well, there are differences because we are 29 different countries from both sides of the atlantic with different political focus and power and different history and geography. but despite the differences, we've always been able to protect and defend each other because we're stronger and safer together. and that is what we communicate now. >> i would say that nobody needs nato more than france. you just look back over the last long period of time. nobody needs nato more than france. and, frankly, the one that benefits really the least is the united states. we benefit the least. we're helping europe. europe united states and they go against a common foe. that may or may not be foe. can't tell you that. but there are other foes out there also. but i think nobody needs it more than france. and that's why i think that when france makes the statement like they made about nato, it's a
very dangerous statement for them to make. >> what would it take for you not to impose the tariffs? >> look, i'm not in love with those companies, google, facebook, twitter, i'm doing good with twitter on the other side. i'm not necessarily in love with those companies. but they're american companies. i want to tax those companies. they're not going to be taxed by france. france is going to put a tax on. it was totally ut out of the bl. he man u he will had an idea, let tax those companies. i'm not going to let people take advantage of american companies. if anyone is going to take advantage of the american companies, its going to be us, it's not going to be france. and so we taxing, as you know, we're taxing their wines and everything else. we have a very, very big tax to put on them. plus, we have a tax going on airbus and that will be a good
thing for boeing. but we're only going to do that if it's necessary. as you know, we won in the world trade organization we won $7.5 billion. we never used to win before me because before me, the united states was a sucker for all of these different organizations. and now they realize the world trade organization realizes that my attitude on them if they don't treat us fairly, well, i'll tell you some day what will happen. and we've been winning a lot of cases at the world trade organization. we virtually very rarely did we ever win a case. they took advantage of the united states. so that's where it is. we won $7.5 billion. if france puts a tax on our companies, again, these are companies that are against, you know, they were against me if i read the papers correctly. i don't know why they were against me. but they were against me. they're supposed to be very powerful and yet i won. so maybe they're not so powerful. but they're american companies. i don't want france taxing
american companies. if they're going to be taxed, it's going to be the united states will tax them. okay? >> and why you are staying out of the british elections, sir? >> because i don't want to complicate it. i can -- look, i won a lot of elections for a lot of people. if you look just over last few months, two elections in north carolina i won. i helped the governor of kentucky -- i mean they went up supposedly 17, 18, 19 points because of me. he lost by a little bit. but i lifted him 19 points n louisiana, i got them into a run yochlt after getting into a runoff, he picked up 14 points because they thought he was going to lose to a popular governor, edwards. popular governor. he almost won. he lost by less than a point. but with the exception of those two races where i had a huge impact because i raised them up almost to victory and they had no chance with the exception of those two, i've won virtually every race that i participated
in. but this is a different country. and, you know, i say often in germany they like obama. the reason they like obama is because obama gave the thip ssh away. he allowed them to give everything. he took away things i wouldn't allow him to do. i love germany. i love this country. i love a lot of countries. but i'm representing the u.s. so they may not like me because i'm representing us. i represent us strong. he gave everything away. he shouldn't have done that. and that's why we're still paying a price for what he did. so i'll stay out of the election. you know that i was a fan of brexit. i called it the day before. i was opening up turnberry the day before brexit. you were there. many of you were there. i recognize that many of you were there. they asked me whether or not brexit would happen. i said yes and everybody smiled
and they laughed. i said yes. it's going to happen in my opinion. it was just my opinion. the next day they had the election. and i was right. but i stay out of it. i think boris is very capable. i think he'll do a good job. >> how is your relationship with president macron going into the meeting? >> it's fine. i always had a good relationship with president macron. sometimes he says things he shouldn't say. and i disagree with some of the policies with respect to france. but he's going to do what he's going to do. sometimes i think he does things that are counterproductive for his own country. [ inaudible question ] >> i can work with anybody. i'm a very easy person to work w you wouldn't believe it. when i came in, i was angry at nato. and now i raised $130 billion. by the way, you're talking
annually. you know, you're talking about a tremendous amount of money. you're talking about numbers that are astronomical. and, yet, you still have many delinquent people not paid up in full. then i asked the other question. when they don't pay up in full, what happens to the past year? so let's say germany is at 1% and they stay at 1%, does that disappear the last five years? nobody's ever asked that question. it's not a bad question for you to be asking. because, you know, it's not like oh, gee let's start a brand new year. a lot of countries haven't paid and can you make the case that they haven't paid, they're really delinquent for 25, 30 years. then you add all that up and nato is very rich system. they haven't chosen to go that way. when germany at 1.2% and they
don't pay up to the -- let me tell you, the 2% is a very low number. you know, it really should be 4%. it shouldn't be 2%, it should be 4%. but that's the way it is. >> mr. president, are you concerned about the impeachment back home? congress is planning to impeach you. >> i don't think so. i know most of the leaders. i get along with them. it's a hoax, the impeachment thing is a hoax. it's turned out to be a hoax. it's done for purely political gain. they see if they can do something in 2020. it's turning out. you see it better than anybody. i read something in your paper the other day that it's having a reverse effect. which some people thought it might have. i didn't know. but i can tell you that the districts where i won and then they had an election in between mine. they had an election and other people got in. democrats got in. those districts are leaning very big toward me. i wasn't in the race in 2018.
so it's not really the same thing. a lot of my voters say they're not going to vote unless trump is actually in the race. but it's really having a tremendous impact on -- and a lot of democrats i hear are very upset. they just got back from the district. i hear they're very upset. the impeachment which hunt, it's really just a continuation of the hoax that has been taking place for the last three years. and i think you know that. >> does it cast a cloud as you're trying to negotiate? >> i would say this. i think it's very unpatriotic of the democrats to put on a performance where they do that. i do. i think it's a bad thing for our country. impeachment wasn't supposed to be used that way. all you have to do is read the transcripts. you see there was absolutely nothing done wrong. they had legal scholars looking at the transcripts the other day. they said these are absolutely perfect. trump is right. those concept -- those calls that we made, two of them, were absolutely perfect calls. and i think it's a very bad
thing for our country. does it cast a cloud? well, if it does, then the democrats have done a very graes great d great disservice to the country which they have. we're trying to get prescription drugs reduced. we can do it easily. they don't have time to do anything. i call them the do nothing democrats. they are hurting our country very badly. >> mr. president, what do you think of president erdogan here? >> i would. >> is there any room for turkey after -- [ inaudible ] >> i'd have to ask the other countries. i have my own views. i wouldn't say it here. good relationship with turkey. we left their border. we've been on their border long enough. they're doing just fine on their border. we kept the oil. i kept the oil. the only people we have over there now, we have a few that a small group that are fighting the remnants because they pop-up
again and we put them down. we've defeated the isis organization. nobody thought we could do that very quickly. i came in and it was virtually 100%. and i knocked it down to 0. and knocked it down to 0. but it pops up every once in a while. we have a very small group there. and we're doing it with others in all fairness. but importantly we kept the oil. the soil what fueled isis. that's what fueled them. that's what gave them the economic strength to do what they did. and, of course, we killed al baghdadi and we also killed his second. so that was very important. he was trying to reform isis. >> trade talks in the united kingdom? >> excusehe? >> should the national health service be on the table in trade talks? >> no. i have nothing to do with it. never even thought about it, honestly. with he have enough -- look, we are going to have great health care system.
we're doing great health care work. we've got things really running well. if we get -- if we get elected if, we take the house, keep the senate, keep the white house, we'll have phenomenal health care. but right now we've made it very good. we have 180 million people on plans that they absolutely love. private plans that they absolutely love. we have absolutely nothing to do it with. if you hand the it to us on a silver platter, we want nothing to do it with. >> there is some talk among all the people censoring you instead of impeachment, what do you think about that? >> unacceptable. i did nothing wrong. i heard about it. now they want to go to censure because they have no case for impeachment. they want to go to censure. i did nothing wrong. i don't mind being censured if did you something wrong. i did nothing wrong. i had great conversation.
very respectful conversation with the president and good person by the way, with the president of ukraine. it was flawless. people analyzed it from 15 different ways. you know, there were many people in that line including the secretary of state. and one person, two people had a complaint. and you take a look at two people and you tell me. but many people -- and i know there were many people on the line. there is always a lot of people. i wouldn't be happy with that at all. no. i did nothing wrong. you don't censure somebody when they did nothing wrong. they're in search of a crime h that's what they are. had i had a very, very good conversation with the head of ukraine. and by the way, yesterday he
came out again and reaffirmed again that we had had a very, very respectful good conversation that president trum dp nothing wrong. he doesn't even really understand what's going on over here. they look at us like is this country crazy? the democrats have gone nuts. they're crazy. >> u.s. and europe in nato? >> say it? >> do you see a great divide in nato between the u.s. and -- >> no. . not with us. but i do see france breaking off. i'm looking at him and i'm saying he needs protection more than anybody. i see him breaking off. i'm a little surprised at that. >> attempt and dependable member of nato and when will you bring sanctions against them? >> first part of the question? >> thank you. is turkey a dependable member of nato and when will you bring sanctions against them for buying russian's missiles? >> it's a country that i happen
to have a good relationship with. we did a deal that everybody was very critical of and now they're saying it works. i read a couple of stories just two days ago that, wow, that deal that trump did with turkey -- i want to get our soldiers out of there. i don't want to police a boreder that is fought over for 2,000 years. i want to get them out. i wanted to keep the oil. and now they're saying that was a great deal that trump made. i like turkey and get along very well with the president. and, you know, i would hope that he's a very good member hf nato or will be. >> turkey it's unimportant to him. you can just look at the maps. bordering iraq and syria, turkey has been important in our joint efforts to fight isis.
we've been able to liberate in the u.s. collision to beat isis. all the territories that isis controls and just support a few months ago. but following the agreement between the united states and turkey when -- we have seen that stalled the nuclear operations in syria. and we're seeing a significant reduction in violence. we're trying to find that political solution to the crisis in syria. on europe and north america, yes there are differences. as there has always been. they went all the way to 2003.
it is nothing new that 29 allies have different views on many different things. trade, climate change and the other things. the strength is despite the differences with very proven again and again able to protect and defend each other. and that's exactly what they're doing now. we're doing more together in north america and europe than we've done for many decades. so the thing is despite them to say some political differences, we always are able to agree and unite around our core and stay together. >> i will say this. three weeks ago when we got al baghdadi, turkey was very helpful. we flew over areas that were totally controlled by turkey and the turkish military. we said we're coming. they absolutely were very supportive, actually. turkey could not have been more
supportive and that's important. i want to just say that in keeping the oil, isis was trying to regain control of the oil. we have total control of the oil. and frankly, we have a lot of support from a lot of different people. bull right now, the only soldiers we have essentially in that area are the soldiers keeping the oil. they did. they tried to buy ours. the obama administration said you can't have them. the obama administration said you can't have the patriots. we're not going to sell them to you. and they said that a number of times. and then turkey went out and bat the russian missile. so we'll see what happens. we're still talking about it. but they wanted to buy the patriots. they tried to buy the patriots. i think most of you know that. and they were shut off from buying the patriots.
they were not allowed to buy it. so that puts him in a bind also. >> but the russian system is not integrated into the integrated in the nato and air defense systems. the russian systems cannot work together with the rest of the nato systems, of course. and the fact there are talks going on between the united states and turkey to come to an alternative, and also the fact that nato actually augments and we deployed the turk irarab defense system today with the deployment of that by nato in turkey. so we aggress this issue. and we try to find a way to solve it. it's now create something problems in germany. >> as you know, turkey bought billions and billions. it was one of the largest orders of f-35s. the greatest fighter jet in the world. they're going to russia or
china. they want to buy the best plane. they're making it very difficult for -- in a way themselves. they're also making it difficult in washington for them to buy that plane. they want to buy. they have a big order. they already put up billions of dollars. they have given it to lockheed martin. >> say it? >> how do you make a decision whether you'll have white house counsel president? >> i'm not thinking about it. i'm only thinking about this. the impeachment hoax is going nowhere. with very tremendous support. in the history of the republican party, there has not been this support. we have 196-0 in terms of votes in the congress. as far as i'm concerned, i hear the senate is angry about the republican senators are very angry about what's going on. because they hurt our country. they're hurting our country on the other side very badly. we have tremendous support. probably the most united that our party's ever been.
i just had a 95% approval rating. it's the highest in the history of the republican party. ronald reagan was 87. he is second. the party has never been this united, the republican party. it's a disgrace to our country. >> how can you say that republican senators says that your contract is perfect and flawless? a number of senators have been critical. >> the only people that are critical are people that haven't read the conversation that i had. and in some case thez haven't read. you okay back there? what happened? you getting into a fistfight or something? >> i'm sorry, sir. >> i thought they got into a little fistfight. no, i think the republican party
is right now more united than they've ever been. when people read -- i always say read the transcript. i also say take a look at what the president of ukraine said. he said it numerous times including very powerfully yesterday. that is the only thing that really -- that's it. then you have people here hearing third hand, fourth hand, second hand. no. we have tremendous support in the republican party. there never has been support like this. i would always complain that the democrats i think and lousy politicians with horrible policy. open border sank wary cities. high taxes. they want to raise your taxes. they always stuck together. i respect that. and the republicans, i always said have better policy. but historically they have been stuck together the same way. there is never been a time where the republican party has been more united. this is a witchunt. bye the democrats. it's a continuation. it's been going on now for three
years. actually from before the election it's been going on. you'll probably see that after the report is released on monday or tuesday. but this the is just a witchunt. visit bad for our country. i'll tell you, it's been very unifying for the republicans. >> a point of clarification n your opening remarks you were critical of country but you didn't name the country. >> i'd rather have you guess. you're a very good reporter. of i'd rather have you guess. >> mr. president, could i -- >> i'll probably agree with your assumptions. >> you would like to see secretary pompeo run for senate? >> so he's a tremendous guy doing a tremendous job. if i thought we were going to lose the seat because we didn't lose that seat, it's a great state. its a state that i won overwhelmingly as you know. we shouldn't lose that state. then i would sit down and talk to mike. you can never find somebody that
does a better job at secretary of state. if i thought we were going to lose that, i would have take talk with mike. mike, if you look at that, he would walk away with the seat f i thought there was race being to losing the seat, i would say that -- i would sit down very seriously and talk to mike. find out how he feels about it. he loves what he's doing. he's doing a great job, as you know. >> could i ask you about nato. why is china such an important subject for this nato summit? >> china very powerful. much more so than in the past. they've date of birth one it la united states money because the past presidents allowed them to steal the cookie cutter. that's okay. i don't begrudge china for. that very disappointed in our past presidents and leadership. they allowed this to happen. there is no way it should have happened. and by the way, i'm doing very well in a deal with china if i want to make it. if i want to make it. if they want to make it. it's if i want to make it.
and we'll see what happens. i'm doing very well if i want to make a deal. i don't know if i want to make it. you'll find out soon. we'll surprise everybody. >> historically, nato is focused on the soviet union and russia. it is something that we're also addressing the implications for our security over china. with very to do that because china is now the second largest defense spender in the world despite the united states. despite the advanced military weapons systems including new ballistic missiles they are able to reach all of europe and the united states. there are gliders and they also deployed hundreds of missiles if china had been part of the treaty. its no about the moving nato
into the south china see. but it's thinking about the fact that china is coming so close weech. we've seen them in the arctic and investing in european infrastructure. we see china in cyberspace. so there are some opportunities. but also some challenges. if you face them together, i think it's guy thing that europe and north america do that together. because together north america we are 50% of world gdp and 50% of the world's military might. so we're bigger and stronger than any other potential alliance. >> i think that's important. it's a very different nato. this is become -- i think since i've joined, since i've come in in, we have a very good relationship. this used to be a nato on one country. they didn't talk about anything else. now really we're looking at all over the world. because the world changes. 70 years and it's a long time. the world has changed a lot. i don't think frankly before us
that nato was changing at all with it. and nato is changing right now. so it's a different nato. it's covering a lot more territory. it's covering hot spots. it's covering a lot of things that were never even contemplated or thought of even five years ago. if you go back five years, they wouldn't have even ben thinking about the things that we're doing now. so i have become a bigger fan of nato because they have been so flexible. if they weren't flexible, i think i would probably be not so happy. but they are very flexible. and this gentlemen is doing a great job. >> isis and germany? >> i will come to germany, sure. i love germany. i love the people of germany. >> mr. president, why is north korea continue the nuclear program despite your -- >> we'll see. i have confidence in him. i like him. he likes me. we have a good relationship. we'll see. we'll see what happens. he is not sending rockets up. that's why i call him rocket
man. we have a very good relationship. and we'll see what happens. it may work out. it may not. but in the meantime, it's been a long time. president obama said it's the number one problem and it would have been war. he'd be in a war right now if it weren't for me. >> we still have peace. we have peace. and at least speaking for myself, i have a very good perm relationship. the her mitt kingdom. i know a lot about his hermit kingdom, but i have a
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on