tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 7, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
tonight on a special edition of "all in." >> they gave the server to crowdstrike. >> a president being impeached for his pursuit of a conspiracy theory will not defend himself in the house. >> are you sure they gave it to ukraine? >> well, that's what the word is. >> tonight how donald trump has managed to separate his entire party from reality. and congressman ted lieu and senator mazie hirono, what happens next. plus new alarms over rudy giuliani's trip to ukraine. >> that's a question between rudy and the president. >> and former congresswoman katie hill on why she's speaking out just weeks after her resignation. >> hiding away and disappearing would be the one unforgivable
sin. >> live from 6a in rockefeller plaza, "all in" starts right now. [ cheers and applause ] good evening. thank you for being here. great to have you all here at 30 rock. another historic week. we're doing this thing the country very, very rarely does, impeaching a president. it's happening in realtime. on tuesday the house intelligence committee dropped a 300-page report detailing the evidence that was collected in the inquiry in that committee into the impeachment of the president. and in that report, which i think we all expected wouldn't have any new revelations, there was a crazy revelation which were these call logs that were obtained by the committee that suggested that the ranking member, the republican on the house intelligence committee, that's congressman devin nunes, that he maybe was part of the very same scheme to hijack ukraine policy that's literally the reason the president is being impeached. congressman nunes had multiple phone calls with not only rudy
giuliani but also rudy's indicted pal, lev parnas. and he just failed to mention it. like while he's sitting there the whole time while they're all talking about it, which is weird and kind of fishy to say the very least. and so now the judiciary committee is preparing articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. it's just the fourth time in american history that that's happened. and as we sort of head towards that moment when we get the articles, i think there's a palpable sense, and i don't know if you feel this way but i do and certainly reading the polling where we've reached the place where public opinion's kind of leveled off, right, that the views on impeachment are hardened and polarized. and that's not unusual. it's certainly not unusual in impeachments throughout history. but right now we are more polarized than ever along party lines as a country. basically, every metric we have to measure this, it's the most polarized time since the civil war in america. and when you hear, you know, people talk about polarization,
i think it's really important for me to say this to you the audience here and at home that polarization is not just something that is true of like them, like the other side, right? those bad guys over there, those trump voters. like, everyone is subject to t same human impulses, the same confirmation bias, tribal loyalties, the impulse to kind of push away bad news for your side, listen to news that helps your side. and it's an impulse we all have to fight about. we try to fight it here when we do this show. and it's also why factions and parties have been part of every democracy from day one. this is sort of how human beings agglomerate together. how they fight for things. it's ines kaipable. but the other thing about this is while polarization is happening on both sides, it's also the case that one side is much worse. [ applause ] no, i know. and there's no way to say that without yourself sounding biased, obviously. right? to say i'm telling you it's both
sides but also them. but i think that -- i really do think that's true. and i want to give one example that was really sort of front of mind today of one side sort of being worse, being less tethered to reality, and that was because today was jobs day. right? it's a big deal in the business press and even in the media generally because it's the day the bureau of labor statistics releases all the job stats for the previous month. and it was a good jobs number today. there was 266,000 new jobs. that beat expectations by quite a bit. the unemployment rate ticked down to 3.5%. that's a 50-year low. it's good that a lot of people are working. [ applause ] exactly. yes. it's good people are working. we're happy about that. now, there are a lot of places i think if you look into the data, if you sort of sift through it that show the economy is actually a lot weaker for working people and huge swaths of americans than that number suggests. but the data is the data. right? the top line numbers were good today. and after the job numbers came
out, i saw this tweet from politico's chief economic correspondent, a guy by the name of ben white who's been covering this for years, saying today i'm thankful i don't see the kind of bureau of labor statistics truthers that always seemed to pop up when obama had good jobs numbers. that was a whole thing, a whole micro industry back during barack obama's presidency. any time there were good jobs numbers, a bunch of conservatives, a bunch of them would just start yelling they're cooking the books, this is deep state conspiracy inside the government to mess with the numbers to make barack hussein obama look good when the economy is bad. even jack welch, the former chairman and ceo of general electric, which used to own this network, tweeted this back in 2012. "unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change the numbers." that's jack welch. and he was always a conservative guy. but, you know, for a respected
business leader to accuse like the president's agents inside the bls of fudging job numbers to help his re-election, that's pretty wild. he was not the only one by any means. this was a widespread vunt right. 2014 trump tv host sean hannity called the unemployment rate a lie. there were whole websites devoted to this, like the alternate facts of the jobs numbers. but the number one job number truther during the obama administration was donald trump. yes, okay? he tweeted -- he tweeted about it all the time and i mean all the time. it was an obsession. and when he was out on the campaign trail he was saying absolutely crazy stuff. >> the job numbers that come back are total nonsense. they compile the numbers so that politicians look good. >> we're losing jobs. we have phony jobs numbers. >> and you hear about those phony job numbers. where it's 5%. >> don't believe the 5% stuff. it's 25%.
>> our real unemployment rate is probably 30%. >> i actually think it could be as high as 32%, 35%. >> as high as 35%. in fact i even heard recently 42%. >> it's a phony set of numbers. they cooked the books. you ever hear the expression? they cooked the books. >> sure, 42%. worse than the great depression. half the country's unemployed. yeah. i mean it's funny but it's not because the result of hearing things like that over and over and over is that people actually started to believe that the unemployment rate went up under president barack obama. okay? it did not. it did not. but according to a poll from december 2016, fairly recent, 67% of trump voters say the unemployment increased during the obama administration to only 20% saying it decreased. now, unemployment went down a lot under barack obama. if you look at this chart, that's the reality. but trump got his people thinking the opposite of the truth.
now, then candidate trump becomes president donald trump and the first jobs report comes out, and it's actually pretty good. and white house press secretary sean spicer goes out, back when they still held press conferences, remember that? and he set out to do a victory lap and reporters asked him about all of trump's old comments. >> yeah, i talked to the president prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly. they may have been phony in the past but it's very real now. >> ha, ha. everyone laughs. oh, isn't that so funny. it was all b.s. wink, wink, nudge, nudge. we were lying before. it was all just bad faith. and even though donald trump was literally a jobs number truther, right? right until he got into office. that's what you see happen on the first day. there are two things, though, to understand about that moment. one is what i'm describing here is totally asymmetrical. okay? there is only one side doing this. conservatives and the now republican president. no one on this network is going
to come to you today on this job day and say that trump is cooking the books. it's not true. i'm telling you right now the jobs numbers are the jobs numbers because one side is attached to facts in a way that the other side just is not anymore. [ cheers and applause ] and the second thing is donald trump brought that same delusional madness into the white house. it did not die with the obama birth certificate and the fictional video of muslims celebrating 9/11 that he wrongfully and offensively said existed and the not actually inflated jobs numbers. no, it didn't die. it continues. because donald trump right now is being impeached for using the full force of the state, the most powerful position in all of the human world, to pursue an equally insane conspiracy theory. like the ridiculous crowdstrike thing that he keeps going on about that he asked the
ukrainian president to investigate. the idea that, get this, democrats hacked themselves with the help of ukraine to leak their own e-mails and frame russia. and right now trump's own justice department is pursuing another conspiracy theory, two investigations, two of another conspiracy theory that the deep state entrapped the trump campaign into appearing to encourage russian help in the election. the justice department is doing this right now. and then we have this new reporting just in the last few days that the actual fact finders in this matter, the i.g.'s report and this other report happening through a u.s. attorney have found no evidence to back up that claim. big surprise. is that going to stop the president from saying it? just today rudy giuliani wrapped up a trip in ukraine where he is continuing to do the equivalent of jobs number truthing on a much larger, more dangerous international scale. giuliani is trying to find
someone, anyone, no matter how shady or duplicitous or deceptive or corrupt who will tell them they were cooking the books essentially in ukraine, that they had it out for donald trump. and this is -- it's phenomenally dangerous. but the most dangerous part is that president donald trump is as much a symptom of this as he is the cause. i mean, the man is first and foremost a fox news viewer. that's his central identity. he's -- i mean that's what's going on in the brain. and there's an entire ecosystem built around the alternate reality that is untethered from fact. the same one that tells them that the jobs numbers are made up. that same ecosystem is now telling people that the deep state is out to get donald trump, that ukraine actually meddled in the election, not russia. that there are imaginary servers somewhere in a vault in kiev that will blow the whole thing open. and all this is being told to hide what really happened.
and those people and that ecosystem that is almost hermetically sealed off from this sort of touch to reality has a purchase on 40% of the country. and in the real world in which the rest of the country resides the job numbers are the job numbers. and russia sabotaged our election, not ukraine. but trump world has completely in some cases cut themselves off from these facts and knowledge of them. that is the danger of having this guy as president. it's the danger of the ecosystem that produced him. and it's the danger of this political moment because this is where we are, and this is the world in which the impeachment and trial of president donald trump is going to take place. the question is can there be any persuasion on impeachment in this ecosystem that has been totally detached from the intrusions of reality? and if the answer to that is no,
what does that mean? joining me now a house member, a member of the house judiciary committee which will be responsible for drafting and voting on articles of impeachment against the president, democratic congressman ted lieu of california. [ cheers and applause ] so my first question to you, congressman, is that. is persuasion on this question possible? and if so who are you as a member of this committee that's going to be drafting these articles, who are you trying to persuade? >> thank you, chris, for that question. let me reiterate again that impeachment is one of the gravest powers of congress, second only to our power to declare war, and must always be our last option reserved for those rare times when we can't wait for the next election. i think we may be at one of those rare times because the facts shows that donald trump repeatedly solicited foreign interference in our elections. that's a threat to the core of
our democracy. i think the case is particularly powerful because some of the most damning evidence came from trump's own people, people like ambassador gordon sondland who gave a million dollars to the trump inaugural committee. i think it's those facts from people who are trump's people who make this case compelling. we're going to be targeting the u.s. stones and see if they can see the fact in this case through. >> okay. so you represent a fairly democratic district. it's not like a swing or front line district. but obviously when you've got hundreds of thousands of people in the district and people in politics do you feel like just even in your own district there are some set of people on the fence that with enough evidence and properly displayed to them you can bring over to thinking this is the right thing to do who aren't yet convinced? >> i think there are some that are on the fence. i think we also have to convince the american public that democrats have a good case. whether or not you agree with our ultimate conclusion if the
american public can at least come to the view that the democrats had a good case to proceed, then i think we have victory there. and an impeachment is like an indictment. i'm a former prosecutor. this is not the trial. this is the indictment phase. we just have to have probable cause that we believe the president engaged in this misconduct and i think the evidence is overwhelming that he did. >> it seems to me part of the strategy from the beginning is essentially to call the process itself illegitimate. right? that has been the argument both from the white house and your colleagues in the republican party. just a few hours ago the president's white house counsel sent a kind of i don't know the right word, snitty two-paragraph letter saying -- appearing to indicate that none of the president's representation will show up at the committee hearing despite the fact they banged on about wanting that. do you see them as essentially attempting to delegitimize fundamentally the process you're undertaking in the house? >> that's exactly what they're trying to do because they don't
have the facts. they have not been able to rebut their main facts in this case which is that donald trump solicited the ukrainian leader to publicly announce an investigation into the dnc server and the bidens. and then he conditioned that public announcement on military aid and a critical white house meeting. the white house has not been able to say that any of those facts are wrong or improper. we invited the white house to participate. as a foreign prosecutor i know that if they had exculpatory evidence the defense would present it. in this case the exact thing is happening. >> so the most interesting member of the house to me on this question right now is justin amash. and the reason is that he is -- he is a republican -- he was a republican. he came out for impeachment after the mueller report because of the compelling case for obstruction in the mueller report, before ukraine. but he has since embraced impeachment. he tweeted today that he could view himself, our think he told people he could view himself voting for three articles of impeachment, obstruction of
congress, obstruction of justice, abuse of power. how much is amash's view on this significant, important to the way your caucus thinks about it since he's been kicked out of the republican party but he's not a democrat? >> representative amash is someone with high integrity. he is also very conservative. he was a member of the tea party, and he looked at the facts and he made a determination based on his principles and applying law to facts and he concluded this was impeachable conduct. i wish more people in the republican party would do what justin amash did. and what we're going to try to do is really present the facts in a sober, deliberate manner using trump's own people to make the case against him. >> congressman ted lieu of california on the house judiciary committee. thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. [ applause ] >> thank you, chris. >> so if that's what looks like in the house then the big question is there any hope for the senate? senator maisie hirono of hawaii is here in studio to talk about that next. don't go anywhere. go anywhere. [farmers bell]
♪ (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. 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.
powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. [ cheers and applause ] on monday the house judiciary committee will hold its second impeachment inquiry hearing where you can expect a kind of trial-like atmosphere. there's going to be presentations from both a majority and minority counsel, from both the intelligence committee and the judiciary committee. there's going to be four lawyers up there. it now appears likely there will be a full house vote on impeachment before the end of the year.
and assuming the vote goes as expected and it looks like it will, if trump is impeached, that's when the real trial will start, and that's when the republican-led senate deliberating whether trump should be removed from office will happen. which requires a 2/3 vote. this week the senate put out its 2020 schedule and you might notice january is missing from the schedule. the senate leadership citing, quote, uncertainty for the floor schedule at the start of the year. and in their defense there's a lot of uncertainty over what to expect. joining me now is a member of the senate who's going to play a part in thafrkt process and ultimately to vote on whether to remove the president from office. senator mazie hirono, democrat of hawaii. [ cheers and applause ] good to see you. >> thank you. >> i want to talk about impeachment and i want to start with something that happened, just an awful thing that happened today in florida, in pensacola where three people
were shot and killed. the shooter was then killed. it appears to be a saudi national on a naval air station. and the reason i want to bring it up specifically is that on wednesday in your state at pearl harbor there was another shooting in which a navy sailor shot and killed two people before killing himself. you have been in session now -- there are pieces of gun legislation sitting there. >> yes. >> and i should note the service weapon was used on the they've station in pearl harbor. so it doesn't necessarily affect policy. but what is it like to watch this happen, knowing that there is legislation that might even pass the senate if mitch mcconnell would bring it up for a vote? >> i'm glad you mentioned it was mitch mcconnell who could bring the house-passed gun safety law to the floor, and he won't do it because he's listening to the nra. when you think about it, there are 100 people who die from gun violence every single day in our country, every single day. add it up.
so it's inexplicable. explainable if you realize how strong the nra is. and so there's no excuse. and of course my heart and our thoughts go out to the families of the people who were killed in pensacola and in hawaii. but at the same time once again we are reminded that we have to do something. there's no magic bullet on stopping gun violence in our country but we can do some basic things. >> do you think -- i mean, i know mcconnell won't bring this up for a vote. do you think it's because it would pass? if there was a world in which it were brought up for a vote, like do you think you'd get the 51 votes? >> even if we don't get the 51 votes i don't think he wants his members to come out and act like they're all with the nra. i think that's damaging. >> so he's protecting them. >> i think so, yes. >> impeachment is now most likely going to be coming to your body in the senate. and i asked jim manley this last night. he was a long-time staffer for harry reed.
there's a certain contingent in the house and white house who want the senate trial to be turned into an absolute circus like a matt gaetz-style counterinvestigation where they subpoena hunter biden et cetera. do you think that will happen in the senate? >> i think republicans will try it. because they've been stymieing everything, putting road blocks everywhere. and here's how i explain it. you know, they can't focus on the this. the this is the president shook down the president of another country basically trying to bribe the president of ukraine saying i'll give you $400 million if you do this thing for me politically. they can't focus on that, so they want to focus on what about that, what about that? they won't focus on the this. whether they do focus on the this, if and when maybe they're going to say so what, get over it. we shouldn't get over it. that's not okay. [ applause ] >> the way i understand impeachment working in the past
is that the chief justice presides but really the procedural rules are set by a majority of the senate, whatever they get 51 votes for. do you think there'll be any restraint? do you think it'll be hard for mcconnell to get 51 votes to say like subpoena hunter biden? >> i don't know. these are not normal times. under normal times you would think an impeachment proceeding is serious business and you would lend it the seriousness that it deserves. but these are not normal times and they're going to try all kinds of things. who knows what? but i'm hopeful that recognizing that this is our constitutional responsibility that there's going to be some element of recognition of that on both sides and that we'll be able to have a proceeding that will for most people, they will say okay, you know, we're going to get on with it and we'll take a vote. but the republicans could turn it into a circus because they're already trying to get all these other people, and you have giuliani still running around like he's a mad person.
>> there was something else that happened in the house today i thought was pretty interesting and somewhat disturbing. the supreme court struck down a part of the voting rights act which laid out the formula for which states, localities, and districts had to go to the justice department when they're making changes. the supreme court said that was bad. if congress wanted one they had to come up with one. congress came up with one and passed it today. every republican voted against that except for one. >> who was the one? the guy that's retiring? >> no. brian fitzpatrick of pennsylvania who actually i think is up for re-election. >> that's hopeful. >> that's hopeful you say. we got one! plaus [ applause ] but i mean it used to be a totally bipartisan bill. like, what does that say to you right now about the nature of the politics of the country that there was one vote for restoring that part of the -- >> it's very sad there's only
one vote to try to protect voting rights which is a really sacred right as far as i'm concerned. and it all started with the shelby koenig decision that took away voting rights. and then you have attorney general barr who is not particularly interested in going after voter fraud and voter suppression. he's not interested in all of that. and so you can see the kind of divisiveness that's occurred. i really loved your piece coming in about the divided country. but some of us actually listen to facts, we pay attention to facts. and there's a whole group of people in our country, sadly, who watch fox news and we're not going to be able to change their mind apparently. >> right. but do you have colleagues -- it used to be the case that you had colleagues who listened to facts. again, i'm not making this up. there was bipartisan re-authorization of the voting rights act that wasn't even that partisan. it was jim sensenbrenner, who is a very conservative member from wisconsin, was the kind of chief architect of it. does that still exist? are there issues you talk to your other colleagues across the
aisle and say let's work together on this, here's what the facts say? >> there are a couple of issues on which we can actually have bipartisan support. one is the national defense authorization act which i think we'll be able to do on a bipartisan basis. but anytime trump gets his fingers into a situation like all the appropriation bills and he wants his money for the wall, it all gets like this. anytime he puts his finger anywhere, it all goes haywire. it's chaos. i've come to that conclusion. as long as he stays out of it. >> there's a possibility. that's very interesting. senator mazie hirono of hawaii it's great to have you here. >> thank you. aloha. [ cheers and applause ] >> you would think that now trump is being impeached for ukraine extortion at the very least that his bag man would stop doing the very thing that got him impeached. but no, rudy giuliani was just in ukraine still doing it. we're going to explain all that next.
- [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics
now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life. [ cheers and applause ] a question that's making the rounds today from almost everyone across the political spectrum is what is rudy giuliani doing? he was just in ukraine meeting with a variety of extremely shady characters and tweeting out precisely the kind of threats towards ukraine that president trump is currently being impeached over.
even republican defenders of trump have not exactly been jumping to defend rudy. >> i can't speak for mr. giuliani. he's wild as a march hare. i do not speak for mr. giuliani. >> i think it's a little weird rudy giuliani is over in the ukraine right now and i'm not here to defend rudy giuliani. >> is the president aware of rudy giuliani is doing in ukraine? >> that's a question between rudy and the president. >> well, yeah it's between rudy and the president because he's doing the president's bidding. that's what he's doing over there. for more on the latest trip i'm joined by two reporters tracking the saga. good to have you guys both here. [ applause ] you reported today basically no one had any idea he was showing up in ukraine in the u.s. government or the white house and they are desperately trying to track his movements? >> well, many senior officials
both in the state department and elsewhere in the national security apparatus early this week several days before "the new york times" story broke that revealed what giuliani was doing overseas in multiple european countries started getting word that giuliani had made his way overseas. and they frantically tried to figure out what he was doing and they were freaking out he was going to do something that would potentially damage u.s. foreign policy or potentially bring more heat on the administration or the president even as he has obviously done before with these various ukraine-related shann d shenanigans. for days they tried to figure out what was going on. but tried to create a road map of which countries, which cities he was visiting in western europe, or europe i should say. and they were trying to do this right up until the moment "the new york times" story broke on wednesday revealing what he was doing. and when we asked rudy giuliani if he cared that these trump
lieutenants were frantically concerned about what he was doing he simply told us i hope they would have better use of their time. >> so we should say that rudy is tweeting yesterday that the fundamental element of the extortion the president is being impeached over, saying that the bidens and the 2016 investigations, that has not been resolved and until it is it will be a major obstacle to the u.s. assisting ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms. like in real time yesterday in ukraine he is making exactly the quid pro quo extortionary claim the president did. >> now, i'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a really bad defense for your client, especially if your client is the president who's currently being impeached. now, if i were the president's lawyer and i wanted to go and create an ironclad defense case for saying that the impeachment narrative is false, that they're getting it entirely wrong, then i would go and meet with basically the opposite of
everyone that rudy giuliani has met with and tweet the exact opposite of things he's tweeted. >> so on that point, i'll come back to you in a second. but on that point i've been reading into some of the characters he's meeting with. and these are some pretty sketchy figures in ukrainian politics. >> absolutely. so one of the people he spoke with is viktor shoekin, who was the prosecutor general in ukraine who when he was in charge was supposed to be running anti-corruption efforts but was actually pretty corrupt himself. and it wasn't just former vice president joe bide wloen said that. it was the rest of the u.s. government. it was western institutions, our lies who all said this guy is really bad at fighting corruption and he needs to go. in joe biden's telling, after he left office he really kind of elevated himself and that's become kind of the base level of this conspiracy theory that shokin had promoted saying that biden got me fired. >> right. but shokin, what's key to me here you have basically a bunch of figures who are basically unknown to the american public.
>> right. >> but in ukraine have pretty shady reputation that's giuliani seems dead set on essentially elevating as the means of defending his client the president. >> absolutely. you go from shokin to his successor, yuri lutsenko who giuliani met with in budapest before he got to ukraine. he's the one who spun a bunch of tales about what the former u.s. ambassador marie yovanovitch had given him a do not prosecute list, that she was bad-mouthing trump, and those lies got spread through giuliani, through john sullivan at the hill. and he recanted them. he said by the way, guys, i was making that up. but now giuliani went back to him to try and prove somehow that the president is being impeached unfairly. it makes absolutely no sense. >> the only thing i can conclude here from hogan gidly is you have the president's lieutenants saying where's rudy, the republicans refusing to defend him. but i think he's doing this at the president's bidding. like he's still doing this for donald trump. >> well, as rudy giuliani was
going about this for months before this exploded in the form of the ukraine scandal and the impeachment inquiry, he would repeatedly tell me and numerous other reporters on the record that he was keeping president trump updated and briefed on his ukraine-related investigations virtual every step of the way would tell him this is what i'm planning to do, this is what i want to do. and president trump of course approved of all of it. and it's unclear if giuliani gave the president a heads up that he was headed to europe on this latest jaunt this week, but it stands to reason he kept him updated step by step in the past. perhaps he's doing that now. sources in and out of the administration who we've been talking to who are familiar with the ongoing relationship say giuliani and trump still continue to talk fairly regularly. so you can't let a little thing like impeachment get in the way of a good friendship. >> or in this case to keep your eyes on the central plot.
he's being impeached for. i mean that is what's so remarkable here is the attempt to actually continue to solicit foreign interference in the election as he's being impeached for attempting to get foreign interference in the election. >> absolutely. and one of the things that rudy's been tweeting about is how all of this is completely within the president's rights to do. i think it was earlier today he tweeted that if you look at article 2, section 3 of the constitution the president has to do this. if you look at that there's a clause in there that says the president must, you know, make sure that the laws are being faithfully executed. which i think is a pretty bad defense of donald trump if you look at the arc of history when it comes to taking the laws congress has passed including providing almost $400 million of military aid to ukraine and completely ignoring that. >> alsawin sub saeng in d.c. hayes, good to have you here. thank you, gentlemen. [ applause ] don't go anywhere. it's an interview i've actually been looking forward to all week. actually for longer than that. former congresswoman katie hill
is going to join me here in the studio next. i saved hundreds on my car insurance when i switched to geico. and this is how it made me feel. it was like that feeling when you go to taco night at your favorite restaurant. and they're the best-tasting tacos in the entire world. and just when you think it couldn't get any better, they bring you out another taco... ...cuz they made an extra one. ♪ extra taco! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. fifteen minutes could save you why do wrinkles happen at the worst times? showing up here here and even here? with new bounce rapid touch up spray, you can fight wrinkles anywhere. spray smooth and you're fresh and ready to go wherever you are.
i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.
before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. ♪ in october freshman democrat katie hill who had just flipped a seat announced she was stepping down from congress after acknowledging a romantic relationship with a campaign
staffer and being accused of a relationship with a congressional staffer which she deni denied. but the real driver of her exit from congress so quickly were the images of revenge porn that was reportedly shopped around to various places before being published by several conservative media outlets clearly with the intent of shaming and bullying her out of congress. and in her farewell katie hill expressed remorse and frustration and anger at what she called the double standard for how men and women in the public eye are treated. joining me now to talk about her experience and this political is the former democratic congresswoman from california's orange county, katie hill. [ cheers and applause ] hey. how are you? have a seat. i feel i want to just start at a human level of how are you doing? >> thank you, i appreciate that. listen, i'm not going to lie. it's been hard. it's been really hard. you have something that you and so many people that you care about and love worked so hard for such a long time, and then within an instant it's totally
gone, right? and you have to take stock and regroup about what your life's going to look like moving forward. i don't just feel that for myself. i feel that for a lot of people. and i feel like it's really important for me on behalf of the people who worked so hard for me to stand back up and make sure i continue to fight. >> do you regret stepping down? >> i don't regret it. i think it was the right thing to do for a number of different reasons, one of which is that i think there was no way for me to continue working as well as i could with the amount of distraction that this was going to continue to provide. this was fodder for, you know, right-wing operatives. and as we were -- literally the day i took my last vote was on impeachment, moving forward with the impeachment inquiry. and i knew that i was going to be basically bait or some kind of distraction against, you know, what was really important.
and, you know, the -- my ex had made it clear that there were hundreds of other images and text messages, and i didn't even know what those were, right? i didn't know that they existed. but the amount of stress it was putting onto my family, onto my supporters, onto my staff -- and even onto -- i was supposed to be the freshman representative to leadership. how could i be the freshman representative to a lot of these people who were in tough seats when they were going to have to go home and answer questions about who is this person that you were working with? >> i think what happened to you in terms of what those images was despicable. but there was an accusation of an ethical breach which is that there was an inappropriate relationship with a congressional aide which would have been subject to ethical jurisdiction and there's a reason that those ethical lines -- did that happen? >> well, no. i have said many times that the entire ethics investigation started because of a claim from my estranged husband. that was it. there was no report from my
office. >> that's what initiated it. >> that initiated it. and i actually have -- and i said this to the chair of the ethics committee. i have a real problem with this whether you're a democrat or a republican. i don't think some random person making accusations should launch an ethics investigation because it's incredibly invasive. it's something that's a big, big deal for not just you but for your staff as well. that there should be some kind of an actual basis for it. that a vengeful ex of some kind or just a random, you know, political operative can't be the one who instigates an investigation like that. so yeah, i think it's highly problematic, but they're able to start that for whatever reason and they said that, well, they're publicly made accusations and so we have to launch this. but that was a huge, huge -- it was an interference in the work and it was something that was highly, you know, stressful. and we didn't know what all could happen with that, especially if they were going to continue to be images and claims. and if there was no boundary
apparently on what they could be -- you're literally opening yourself and your staff up to every single text message, every single, you know, photo, every single everything that you've ever said. by going through an investigation like that. >> i think one thing that struck me that when this happened is -- how old are you? >> i'm 32. >> you're 32. that there's a generation of people that use smartphones differently. there's a generation of people who have millions of texts and images of them in environments with partners, intimate partners or not, whatever, that now are going to enter into public life. >> mm-hmm. >> where this will hang like a sword of damocles. >> yep. >> do you think it's the kind of thing we will evolve over or will it be used as this essentially kind of gendered means of shaming women? >> that was my biggest concern of coming out of this. is that the pictures that were used against me were not even ones i knew were taken.
they weren't even selfies that i took and sent to somebody else. they were ones i didn't even know existed. and you can tell that from looking at the images. but i have taken images like that, right? and i'm not even ashamed to say that i've taken images and sent images like that. and so have i think -- the numbers show regardless of your age i think over 80% of people have done that. let's not pretend this is some taboo thing people are doing. but what we do need to say is who is it being used against? and it's overwhelmingly women. but mine is the first real example where it's been used against a public figure, especially a political figure and the images are published by a mainstream publication, by a significant publication and that's the reason that i think the legal action we're pursuing is going to be so, so important. because i don't think this is an acceptable precedent that can be set. i am all for the first amendment. that is something that i don't think we can question in any way, shape or form. but there is a line, and it ca shape, or form, but there is a line, and it comes down to
fundamental human decency, and you know, are you enabling or empowering somebody who is literally using this to abuse you and to take you down and putting that out for the world to see. and in the most vulnerable state that you could possibly be in. that in and of itself is going to discourage people from running if we don't do something to stop it. we are pursuing everything we can against red state and against the daily mail, and that's going to be a fight. >> i want to talk about some other stuff, too. you -- so one thing was really interesting, and you and i have had a number of conversations on this show. jour you're a very young freshman member of the class that was in a district that was republican. the kind of weather vane of tca. what do you think about the politics, when you think about your district, where do you
think this shakes out? do you think those front line members are sweating this? do you think they feel pretty confident about this? >> i can't speak for everybody, but i have spoken to a lot of my former colleagues, but i think that we were expecting it to get to this point one way or another, right? the grievances were so severe, and the breaches of conduct were so severe, and it was just getting worse and worse and worse and so finally when the ukraine phone call happened, it was like, look, we thought it was going to come to this point, and we didn't want it to, but like we can't let this go any further because at a certain point, what are we there for? if we can't provide a check and balance, then what are we there for? and so i think you had a lot of people and elaine laurie did an incredible video about this that said we -- you know, we weren't politicians who went there to say i need to be in power. i need to become a member of congress. most of us weren't even
considering running for office until after donald trump became elected, so the notion that we have to do something just to stay in office is totally off base, so the decisions that are being made are like is this -- is this consistent with the oath of office that i took? is this consistent with my values, and is this consistent with what i think is right for our country, and the precedent that is being set for generations to come. so i don't think for most people it is a hard decision at this point. i think it's what's harder is making sure that the narrative, the false narrative that the republicans are trying to make -- and are very effective unfortunately at making, doesn't overwhelm what we know are the facts, and you know, that's going to continue to be a challenge. >> it's interesting to hear you say that because i think there's an idea on the right -- and i understand it to a certain point -- which is like the democrats wanted it from day one, and it's true, there were some members of the caucus that did. my experience in talking to folks like yourself and talking to leadership is that basically
want to do anything but impeach the president. >> 100%. >> really wanted to avoid doing it, and ultimately found themselves in a position of like, we cannot let this -- we can't let him essentially help rig the next election. >> right. and what i'll tell you is that most -- most of us wanted to get -- we wanted him to go away, right? like i don't think there was anyone there that was like gee, let's get donald trump elected for another four years, and we ran because of that in large part, because we felt like there needed to be a check on the president, and we needed to get rid of him in 2020, but i don't -- you know, for the most part we didn't feel like impeaching him was, a, going to work, b, was necessarily something that we wanted to put the country through and that we wanted to focus our time on because we thought that it was important to prove to the people who elected us that we were going to work or not issues that they cared about which was not overwhelmingly impeachment, it was overwhelmingly the cost of prescription drugs, the cost of housing, you know, the day-to-day struggles that people are dealing with, and so when
you're -- when we were trying to -- we were trying to maintain or conduct congressional oversight and fulfill our oath of office and do what we were sent there to do, but also at the same time actually legislate. and so for a long, long time -- and the leadership despite the pressure that they were getting from the left and the speaker was getting from the left of like, oh, my fwogod, this guy's frickin' criminal, we have to impeach him -- which is not wrong. >> right, right. >> but balancing that with the 40 people who did come from these swing seats and who are trying to -- you know, who are trying to say, yeah, but like also how are we going to move forward as a country. and then finally you hit a point where there's just no option anymore. and i think that, you know, with the exception of one or two people that's where we've all kind of -- everyone on the democratic side has come to terms with, and what i've been so shocked by and disappointed by is that i know republicans
on, you know, my former colleagues that are republicans also know that they are completely hypocritical to think this is something they would allow from a democratic president, and that they are even remotely suggesting that this is something that is okay or right or normal in any shape or form, but they are willing to just completely brush that aside because of the cult that is donald trump and that has become the republican party. >> katie hill, former congresswoman, it's such a great pleasure to talk to you, and i really appreciate you coming today. >> thank you so much. >> do not go anywhere, rachel maddow is next. order up. fries on the side. right where i like 'em. don't forget the grease fire. burn, baby -- wait, what? -[ alarm beeping ] -i said grease fire. what are you doing on the counter? when owning a small business gets real... sorry. can i get a to-go box?
...progressive helps protect what you built -with customizable coverage. -aah! ...progressive helps protect what you built cologuard: colon cancer and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.
cake in the conference room! showing 'em you're ready... to be your own boss. that's the beauty of your smile. crest's three dimensional whitening... ...removes stains,... ...whitens in-between teeth... ...and protects from future stains. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪
friday. also, this sunday we're doing a live podcast at the town hall new york city, i cannot wait to talk to two incredible writers, tony kushner, jeremy harris. come join us, that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening. >> spectacular, that interview with katie hill was amazing. >> thank you very much. >> incredible. thanks and i'm sorry you're working this weekend, but i also sort of want to go. >> it's going to be fun. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy to have you here this friday night, the white house and president trump's republican supporters in congress first said that the impeachment proceedings against president trump were unfair because there had been no floor vote in the house authorizing the impeachment inquiry. that was their first objection. this isn't a real impeachment. it's unfair. there has been no floor vote. then, uh-oh, the house held a floor vote authorizing the impeachment inquir