tv The Beat With Ari Melber MSNBC December 23, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PST
that's all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." "the beat with ayman mohyeldin" in foreari start rights now. hello, everyone, i'm ayman mohyeldin in for ari melber. welcome to "the beat" on this monday evening. tonight democrats ramping up the pressure for impeachment witnesses after new ukraine revelations. also, neal katyal on why mitch mcconnell is wrong about the senate trial. s are also, a new court filing showi ining democrats are still thinking about more articles of impeachment against the president. we start with new demands for witnesses in the trial of donald trump. those calls getting louder after release of emails sent 90 minutes after trump's infamous ukraine phone call. white house officials ordering the pentagon to stay quiet about the frozen military aid at the heart of this plot. a budget official writing, quote, given the sensitive
nature of the request, i appreciate you keeping that information closely held to those who need to know. now that frozen aid is at the center of the impeachment case, and now democrats say these new emails highlight the need for more evidence and more witnesses. >> this email is explosive. a top administration official, one that we requested as saying stop the aid 91 minutes after trump called zelensky and said keep it hush-hush. from whom did duffy get the order and why did he do it? what more do you need to request a witness? >> so today the top republican in the senate mitch mcconnell saying they'll decide on witnesses after the trial starts. >> what we need to do is to listen to the arguments, have a written questioning period and then decide whether we need witnesses or not. >> and new tonight, a possible
curveball for trump. democrats on the house judiciary committee telling a federal court that they want former white house counsel don mcgahn to testify so they can decide, quote, whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment. that obviously would be a huge development and signals how seriously democrats are treating obstruction by this white house. i talked to chairwoman maxine waters about that just last night. >> what we see is a continuation of them not responding to subpoenas, them not responding to the requests for documents. the president basically telling everyone around him don't respond to them, don't answer, don't cooperate with the congress. what are they hiding? >> all right. i am joined by mara gay, berit berger, former federal prosecutor and harvard police officer leah wright rigger. if they get this court order in
their favor, that don mcgahn has to potentially testify. what is your reaction to that development and how significant is it? >> well, there is nothing in the constitution that says they can't include additional articles of impeachment if additional evidence comes forward giving them a basis for doing this. i think perhaps the reason they're highlighting this now is to have a response to the doj's position was essentially that don mcgahn's testimony was moot at this point because it didn't affect the existing two articles of impeachment that had been voted on. so they had to come up with a response to say no, we still think this testimony is important. but obviously, if don mcgahn is able to testify and has incriminating information that would lend credence to another article of impeachment, it's well within their right to go forward on that. >> leah, what is your reaction to that as well? it is pretty significant? and is it uncommon? just a regular legal proceeding that more as evidence cosms to light, more charges are added? >> well, i don't think -- once more evidence comes to light, it makes sense that you would bring
additional charges based on the findings, and that in fact from the beginning of this process, this is what it's always been about. even the moments when we knew way back when months ago when we were talking with the house about what kind of articles we would bring forward do, we want to bring impeachment forward, it was always about having this really good grounding in the evidence. and there was always kind of a conversation around what could don mcgahn bring and what kind of testimony and wanting to subpoena him and wanting to get him in front of people because they know that he knows where the bodies are buried. so there was always this conversation. but now that it's become a reality in the last couple of weeks and the white house has been increasingly pushing back on that, now this is a different kind of story and a different kind of narrative. so essentially, the white house is giving them the momentum, giving democrats the momentum to bring additional charges based on whatever comes to light. >> the white house is trying to make a legal argument saying that by asking don mcgahn or asking the courts to weigh in on
don mcgahn's testimony, they could then be injecting themselves into the impeachment process and are saying therefore shea no not be allowed to make a decision about don mcgahn. there any legal truth to that? saying the third and coequal branch of government is not allowed to interfere in a congressional legal proceedings? >> of course not. of course the judiciary has to be able to weigh in on this. what you have here is a white house that has obstructed this congressional investigation, said we're not going to comply with any of these subpoenas. so the next logical step is to bring to it the judicial branch. so this is well within their power, and they really have no choice but to step in if there is an unsettled legal issue where here we have the issue of how far does this executive privilege, how far does this absolute immunity actually extend. >> mara, thinking of new evidence, there have been these emails leased over the weekend. they kind of show the timeline, 90 minutes after that phone call with zelensky, president zelensky and president trump,
interesting, what's significant about it is not necessarily the timing of it but the notion as we were saying at the top of the show, the direct alternative the pentagon official to keep this quiet on a need to know basis. what does that tidbit of information tell you about what may have been or alleged to have been a cover-up? >> this gives you the context in which these white house officials were operating. >> they knew something was wrong. >> they knew it was wrong. they did it anyway. it is -- i won't go into the legal side of things. i'm not a lawyer. but from a political point of view and a common sense point of view, it really tells you a little bit about their intent, and it tells you about their mind-set when they were actually involved in this alleged cover-up. and i think ultimately the democrats have a constitutional obligation as public servants to get as much information about what has occurred to the american people as possible. and it's also a trial in front of the american people.
ultimately, this is about who can control the narrative, the white house in its fantasy land or whether democrats can actually gain a toehold to make their case in front of the american people. not just the courts. it's not just about the courts. >> it's incredible when you think even mitch mcconnell is not necessarily letting witnesses come forward. we may never hear from some of these people who are involved in what democrats allege could potentially be an impeachable offense. what do you make of that significant development in the emails that a budget official is essentially telling a pentagon official hey, keep this quiet for now. not even now. keep this quiet. don't let anyone know about it. from a legal perspective what is the significance that of? >> i think it corroborates what people have been saying now not just for months, but for years is which the white house believes it's above the law. it believes the law does not apply to itself. it doesn't apply to its representatives, 245 there was a real whether it be out of incompetence, out of maliciousness or mal intent
there was disregard for hoy rule of law works, how authority works for accountability, but just how things operate in government. the idea of transparency, the idea of ethics, the idea of morals, all of that sought telephone window because we're talking about a white house that has a complete disregard for rule of law and makes its own set of rules and own set of fax. >> it's interesting. we're talking about a little aspect to. this mitch mcconnell has a very different interpretation of what this process proehl process. let me play you guys his sound bite. >> do you think chuck schumer is is impartial? >> no elizabeth warren? no. >> bernie sanders is impartial? let's quit the charade. this is a political exercise. all i'm asking of schumer is that we treat trump the same way we treated clinton. >> they may not even be doing that because at least the clinton trial had some witnesses, there were deposition there was all kinds of testimony
going into the impeachment trial of clinton. what is your reaction to him making that statement this is an entire political process. it has nothing to do with impartiality. >> look, these people need to be voted out of office. there are public officials serving in both parties across this nation at local levels and in state houses who actually truly serve the people that voted for them, and they put their duty to their constituents and the american constitution above partisan politics. that's something that we're not seeing. you have a higher duty. it's not just duty to party. this is about duty to the constitution, to the american people, and to democracy. and these people have made a mockery, these republicans, okay, of our constitution. they're not supposed to just be about partisan politics. it's the other sidism is really prius rating as well. we really do -- the democratic party has plenty of problems, but right now we have only one party in american democracy that is committed to democracy. and the other party that seems
more interested in power. so ultimately, the voters are going to have to take care of this. >> berit, the interesting thing about this is jurors in a normal trial come from all walks of life and they have their own personal biases, but they're asked to suspend the biases in a courtroom. i'm not sure i ivanisevic understand mitch mcconnell's point. they are politicians, but once they step into that chamber and are involved in a legal proceeding, they're supposed to put their biases on the side. >> that's exactly right. it's a high standard that we ask for our jurors. i've done countless jury trials. >> the whole legal system is based on it. >> if you're interviewing juniors in the voir dire process, you hear a little about their background, but one of the things the judge asks each and err one of them, okay, you put it all aside and just focus on the evidence? why should it be any different for our senators? why shouldn't they be able to put aside their party view and listen to the evidence? also, you're only going get that way if you're actually able to present evidence.
a trial without evidence is an absolutely toothless charade. right? it's nothing for the senators to actually dig into vote on. so they need both evidence and absolutely like you said, they should be able to take the same standard as a regular criminal trial. thinking may be more of a political question than a legal question, but if this trial happens and the president is ultimately i quitted, does it hurt him that he does not get a fair trial, that he gets a sham process, that he just runs around town or across country saying he has been acquitted when everyone knows it was not fair? >> i think no matter what, he was going to call it a biased trial. >> right. >> and that part of what we're seeing is the white house strategy of saying i want to have my cake and eat it too. the president hasn't had a fair trial, but, the things that would require, that we would require for a kind of impartial trial in all of these things like witnesses testifying in fact the president doesn't want, you know, people to do. so he is instructing people not to testify or participate in the process.
so in this prarespect, no matte the outcome, the president can say i wasn't given a share slake. it's not fair. this is part of the strategizing. it's also why democrats are pushing what is going to amount to a constitutional crisis which is going to force republicans to say either we stand for the constitution or you know what? we are just concerned about power. >> speaking of witnesses, let me play you this sound bite from amy klobuchar talking about the need for witnesses. watch. >> the polls show 64% of republicans think these witnesses should testify. the president claiming his innocence, claiming that he wants to present witness, he's the one blocking the witnesses. >> all right. realistically, mara, what is it that democrats can do to really force the hand of mitch mcconnell to have witnesses? is it a pressure campaign? is it calling the senator's office? >> it's all of the above. speaker pelosi has any trick up her sleeve that any speak kerr have. nobody knows the rules better
than she does. but ultimately, the leverage may not be there. what they need to find is they need four members of the senate who are republicans who will demand a fair trial so to speak for the american people. they need to be looking at folks like mitt romney and susan collins. >> see if they can get -- >> to see if they can really get them to pull some leverage here. but ultimately, everything is about the election, which is less than a year away, and that's going to be the ultimate check on the power of mitch mcconnell, the white house. >> political accountability. mara, leah, thank you so much. stick around for us. one more block. coming up, a top white house aide still pushing putin's propaganda about 2016. also, rudy giuliani's expanding conspiracy theories. even some republicans are now sounding skeptical, believe it or not. and the trump administration under its saudi arabia policy
after a court ruling that some call a travesty of justice. i'm ayman mohyeldin, and you're watching beet on msnbc. [sneeze and sniffles] are you ok? yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. and i approve this message. climate is the number one priority. i would declare a state of emergency on day one. congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever. this is a problem which continues to get worse. i've spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies, stopping pipelines, stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. how are we going to pull this country together? we take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the world and we do it together. why are we doing this? why are we doing what? using my old spice moisturize with shea butter body wash...
all i wanted was to use your body wash and all i wanted was to have a body wash. steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn? my skin hurt, i felt gross. but then i started cosentyx and i haven't really had to think about it. real people with psoriasis... look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
election. a top aide to mike pence pushing the discredited theory that ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. watch. >> does trump still believe that it was ukraine, not russia that interfered in the 2016 election? >> chris, it doesn't have to be an either war. kit be both. >> does the president believe that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election? >> he thinks we should at least investigate it, chris. we're not questioning russia's interference, chris. i'm accepting that but it doesn't mean just because russia interfered doesn't mean others didn't as well. >> and as we have reported, there is no evidence that ukraine interfered in the election. and speaking of investigations, well, american intelligence agencies have traced that theory back to russia. in fact, "the times" reporting the kremlin has engaged in a years' long campaign to frame ukraine to be responsible for what russia did in 2016. this comes after digging into how much influence vladimir putin seems to have on president trump.
"the washington post" noting president trump grew insistent ukraine had worked to defeat him after meeting with putin in 2016. trump stated bluntly, quote, putin told me. meanwhile, echoing trumpian rhetoric in an end of year news conference. >> translator: house of representatives is the democratic majority. they've lost the elections and they're trying to revise the history with the means they have at their disposal. >> of course, trump taking to twitter to agree with the russian president, highlighting a write-up of putin's comments adding "a total witch hunt." with me now is glenn kirschner and back with me is berit berger. why does president trump trust vladimir putin over american intelligence agencies? >> i don't know that he does. i mean, if president trump
accepts the fact that russia interfered to his advantage and helped him get elected, it would delegitimize his presidency. so i don't know that it has anything to do with an honestly held belief by donald trump that, you know, ukraine interfered instead of russia. i think he doesn't want to do anything that would in fact delegitimize his presidency. and, you know, vladimir putin, a aayman must laugh himself to sleep every night. donald trump parrots it back. and lo and behold, the republicans in congress spit it out on the floor of the house, on the floor of the senate. and i'm sure vladimir putin never stops reveling in his own good fortune to have diverted attention away from russia and placed attention on ukraine. >> it's quite remarkable that
mark shore, the president's chief of staff can go on national television and say it should be investigated when in fact all of american intelligence agencies have said it was not ukraine, it was russia. former nsc official fiona hill testified about trump's ukraine theory. watch. >> based on questions and statements i have heard, some you have on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country, and that perhaps somehow, for some reason, ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that has been purposed and propagated by the russian security services themselves. >> what is your reaction to that, glenn? >> you know, it's -- the fact that white house officials would say it should be investigated. it has been investigated. as you say, ayman, 17 intelligence agencies. a bipartisan commission of congress, bob mueller for
goodness sake indicted the russians who interfered in our elections. it's been investigated and investigated and investigated, and the fact that donald trump would actually say as is related by senior white house officials, but putin told me it wasn't him, that would be like me prosecuting cases and saying well, you know what? i can't prosecute this defendant because he the defendant told me he didn't do it. it's absurd. >> berit, i'm curious to get your thoughts on how a false ukraine theory like this being advance beside i the white house can either fit into a defense strategy if there is a coherent one by the president, or what is at play here? are we missing something legally speaking from the president and his defense team? >> no, i don't think we are. i actually agree with glenn. i'm not sure how much we can believe that the administration truly live believes that it was ukraine this was responsible for them. i think in many ways this is them putting together a defense of saying he actually was really
concerned about corruption in ukraine. this wasn't just a chance to get dirt on biden. this want just looking into the election. he was truly, deeply concerned about what was happening there to add some sort of legitimacy to the call, to add some sort of legitimacy to his requests from zelensky to show how they were combatting corruption. whether -- if this was a totally discredited theory that nobody believed in, it wouldn't have as much, you know, legs to it. but if this is something that they can put out there that he truly believed that he thought was legitimate, it may be some sort of a defense that they can put forward during trial. >> i always find it interesting and coincidental that trump suddenly became obsessed with fighting corruption in ukraine just as joe biden entered the democratic race and became the front-runner. let me play this sound bite from trump talking about trump at a helsinki summit last year. >> my people came to me, dan coats came to me, some others said they think it's russia. have i president putin.
he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be, but i really do want to see the server, but i have -- i have confidence in both parties. >> berit, do you think is going to be a problem for the election cycle going into 2020 if you have a president whose agencies may be coming to brief him on some of the updated security risk, maybe not just from russia, maybe china, iran, elsewhere, and the president is just taking the word of those countries at face value? >> absolutely. it should be something that every single person in this country is concerned about. if you don't know the source of where the president is getting his information, that should be deeply concerning. we should hope that a president is getting his or her information from the very people that are sourced with gathering that in a responsible and manageable way, not from outside source. could this should be worrying for everybody. >> glenn, final word to you about the impeachment and the ukraine theory that is being put
forward. does the presence of somebody like rudy giuliani and we'll get to that later in the program, what he is trying to do in terms of digging up something in ukraine, does that muddy the waters? >> i don't think so. he'll deliver his little mickey mouse report that was apparently generated by rudy giuliani meeting with a whole bunch of corrupt, fallen, disgraced ukrainian prosecutors and officials, and i think it will land with a thud, and i don't think right be worth the paper it's written on, and i doubt it will make a serious appearance in the impeachment trial. >> all right. glenn kirschner, berit berger, thank you both very much. ahead, neal katyal is here with a preview of the senate impeachment trial and why new witnesses are necessary. that's when we're back in just 30 seconds. 30 seconds
president trump has been impeached, but almost every day we're still learning now details about his ukraine conspiracy. friday night we learned 90 minutes after trump's infamous ukraine call, white house officials told the pentagon to stay quiet about the frozen military aid. in the past week we also learned that a rudy giuliani associate secretly got a million dollar payout from a putin-linked oligarch, that putin himself apparently fed trump those bogus ukraine ideas, and that a key witness to the plot, bill taylor, is now being ordered to leave ukraine. in other words, this is far from over. there is still a lot we don't know, which highlights the need for new witnesses at trump's
senate trial. there are 41 witnesses at andrew johnson's trial, three at bill clinton's. >> republican house managers told the senate they have a witness list, finally naming names. president clinton's friend vernon jordan, sidney blumenthal and monica lewinsky. >> the senate laid down the law today. house prosecutors can persuade the senate to call witness, but only a few, and only if they can add to the case to convict the president. >> in fact, republican senators back then felt they needed witness, including some who will be voting on trump's fate. now like susan collins. >> i need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth. >> with me now, former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. his new book "impeach: the case against donald trump."
and just minutes ago he published a new op-ed in "the washington post" titled new evidence for impeachment of donald trump keeps turning up. that's why we need witnesses. explain why witnesses are needed at the trial, despite what somebody like mitch mcconnell says, that they are not 23450ed. >> there are so many different ways to do so, but let me give you one microcosm, and that's what "the washington post" piece that i just launched a few minutes ago says. so on friday night, trump had tried to keep these emails secret from his omb executives, but they came out. because of private litigation, he tried to hide them. and the emails say one on july 25th, just 90 minutes after the president had his quid pro quo phone call with the president of ukraine saying, i need a favor from you, though, 90 minutes later, this omb, this office of management and budget official, a trump political appointee orders the aid withheld and then says effectively, keep this
quiet. only tell pentagon budget officials. now why did he want it kept quiet? who is he keeping it quiet from? there is only one real explanation here, and it's congress, because he' required actually under law, if you try and not spend some money that congress is not allocated, the act of 1974 requires congress to be told about it, and they weren't. now that official, michael duffy who wrote those emails, he has been on the witness list for the democrats in the house and the senate. the senate has only named four people they want on their list. he is one of them. and this is before this email. now look, can you come up with some possible explanation for what duffy said in those emails? it's really hard, which is why trump tried to hide the emails in the first place. but i suppose it's possible. but that's exactly why duffy needs to come and testify and tell the truth to the american people. and what donald trump has done is he has said no, full gag order. duffy and no one else can
testify. the most striking thing about this is donald trump is being impeached for blocking witnesses, and his solution is oh, i'm going to go block witnesses again in the senate. it is a grave abuse of power. >> and he is certainly getting some help from the senate, including people like mitch mcconnell. and there is a bit of irony in all of this, in that senators are expected to swear a oath to do impartial justice, but mitch mcconnell doesn't seem to be living up to that. what is your take? what would you say to mitch mcconnell when he makes the argument this is not a judicial process, this is a political process? >> i mean, impeachments in the constitution, and i can't think of a more grave responsibility than the senate which is allocated the sole power toe try piece. . a trial is after all a legal proceeding, and impeachment has political overtones, but no, you can't go out and just announce your verdict before having the trial. i know that's what mcconnell is familiar with in soviet justice, but in this country, we have real trials with witnesses, and
as you said, andrew johnson had 41 witnesses. clinton had three. the idea that you have a trial with no witnesses and have the senate majority leader predetermine and preannounce his results ahead of time, this is a constitutional travesty. and mitch mcconnell has shown several times he has no appreciation for the constitution. but i don't think the american female will support such a thing. >> there is an interesting theory that is being floated out there by trump allies and some scholars who are claiming that president trump hasn't really been impeached because the documents, the articles themselves have not been transmitted to mitch mcconnell's office. watch this sound bite. >> one can make a fairly decent argument that the president wasn't really even impeached. nancy and the gang ran out of town without even naming impeachment managers and without sending the articles to the senate. >> i'm not sure she can make a legally based argument, but has trump been impeached or not?
>> oh, he's certainly been impeached. i don't think nobody really believes this. constitutional scholars don't believe this with the exception of one guy at harvard who i think is enamored a little bit by his intelligence. this is a clever but ultimately terrible argument. it's an argument the hoys didn't believe. it would mean the house has been debating in a resolution and taking witnesses and hearing testimony for no reason at all that can't possibly be the rule they voted to impeach the president. and most importantly, donald trump himself thinks he has been impeached because his own justice department made a filing last week in federal court in the mcgann case which said that case is now moot because he has been impeached. nobody -- i think nobody serious really believes this. >> and let me get your thoughts the role joint chief justice john roberts will play in this. he is expected to preside over the trial. there are sparks between president trump going after chief justice roberts on twitter
over the past year or so. what do you expect him to play? does he have any actual power or influence, not on the outcome, but at least in the decorum and the process of how this plays out? >> oh, i think the chief justice has a massive role to play. so impeachments of the president have been governed by the same rules that have been around since andrew johnson in 1868. and they say that the chief justice is the one to decide over which witnesses will appear. and so mcconnell has been trying to signal that maybe he is going to try to break with those rules and try and do something totally different, something very unconstitutional. but, you know, that's going to require i think a real significant rebuke by the senate over the chief justice. i just don't think that's possible. and so i do think ultimately the chief justice is empowered by those 1868 rules to decide on witnesses. and joinwhen you have a circumse like this when one of the two
central allegations against the president is he is obstructing justice by blocking witnesses, i think it's unlike they this chief justice, who is known for fairness is going to say oh, okay, mr. president, you can go block some more witnesses. >> all right. neal katyal, always a pleasure. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and for more expert announcements from neal, check out his past segments at msnbc.com/openingarguments. coming up, trump's saudi arabia policy under fire after critics say it makes a mockery of justice. and reporting on giuliani's new unhinged conspiracy theories. also, ari's special look back at the top ten legal stories of 2019. but first, a clip that had lots of people shaking their heads this weekend. the president renewing his attack on an olden my, windmills. >> i never understood -- i know windmills very much. i've studied it more than anybody. it's very expensive. tremendous, if you're into this. tremendous fumes, gases are spewing into the atmosphere. we have a world, right?
so the world is tiny compared to the universe. a windmill will kill many bald eagles. it's true. and you know what? after a certain number, they make you turn the windmill off. that's true, by the way. why is it okay for the windmills to destroy the bird population? and that's what they're doing. g.
steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn? most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations.
itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. i don't know what rudy's got, but i'm going to send him a letter. if you're going to go on national television and tell the country that you found evidence of a cover-up, then i hope you know what you're talking about. i am going to have an open invitation to rudy giuliani to come to the senate judiciary committee and tell us what you found, and if he come, you got to be willing to ask questions about your conduct. it's just not good for the country to make these accusations on cable television without them being tested.
>> all right. so even trump defender lindsey graham seeming to take a skeptical view towards rudy giuliani, calling on him to back up his wild claims under oath. giuliani traveling to ukraine this month, pushing the very scheme that got his client donald trump impeached in the first place. nbc news reporting that he now claims to have new proof of various debunked conspiracy theories. this alleged proof includes four whistle-blower, two multibillion schemes, and an obama composite cover-up. nbc political reporter josh letterman wrote that story and joins me now from iowa. josh, good to have you with us. i know you've been following this case, but the interesting thing about it is even trump defenders, as we just played there from lindsey graham, are now wary of giuliani. what does he really claim to have found? >> yes, skepticism even from lindsey graham at the same time lindsey graham and some of his colleagues inviting some of the very witnesses involved in what rudy giuliani says he's uncovered. so he's been really crept tick about what exactly he is
floating. we wanted to really dive into what he says he's learned. so the first bucket of allegations has to do with these two multibillion corruption schemes that he says he has uncovered and that he says the obama administration and former ambassador yovanovitch worked to cover up because it essentially would look bad for democrats. one was a $5.3 billion what he says was a corruption scheme involving wasted u.s. taxpayer dollars. so we took a hard look at that. it turns out the u.s. has never given $5.3 billion to ukraine. the top recipient of u.s. aid, israel, has ever only received about $3.8 billion. there was an accounting review in ukraine that found some of the money wasn't spent as effectively as it could have, but no evidence of corruption or money laundering. same with the over $7 billion scheme that giuliani has been talking related to the investment firm franklin
templeton. this is money he says former president yanukovych stole and smuggled into the u.s. we took a look at that and spoke with the company. the money went in the opposite direction. it went from the u.s. to ukraine through bonds that were purchased. so not a lot of water in that one either. and then lastly, he has been talking about these four would-be ukrainian whistle-blowers who he says have wanted to come to the u.s. to testify about some type of corruption that they're aware of, but that yovanovitch blocked them from getting visas in giuliani's argument, so they couldn't come and expose this type of wrongdoing. and obviously visa records are confidential, but we know at least one of those potential witness, former prosecutor viktor shokin, bass yovanovitch testified he didn't get his visa because he was himself involved in known corrupt activities. not because he was coming to the u.s. to uncover. >> let me ask you quickly with
the time we have left about rudy giuliani mental state. "new york" magazine also just profiled rudy and she where's, quote, former ambassador yovanovitch is controlled by george soros. . he put all four ambassadors there, and he is employing the fbi agents. so i go back to my initial point. rudy giuliani starting to sound a little crazy? and i'm not trying to joke about it. but are people around the president and others concerned when he makes these types of asoerngts the record that a pryor private american citizen controls the fbi and also controls our diplomatic corps by appointing the ambassadors? >> it's certainly aiming farther and farther into the land of totally unbased conspiracy theori theories. we at msnbc took a deep dive into and found giuliani and his associates have been promulgating that really without any evidence. but look, part of the reason that rudy giuliani is doing this, even if it seems unhinged to a general audience is because
it plays really well for the president's base, and for those who are looking for reasons to support donald trump, even throughout his impeachment, these give them something to hang their hat on. >> all right, josh letterman out on the campaign trail for us, but also covering multiple stories at the same time. well appreciate it. >> thank you. when we come back, we have a look at ari melber's top ten stories of 2019. and what some call a travesty of justice. i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.
[sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. us lives here. where we can be surprised by others. and ourselves. for a better us, donate to your local y today. that will makeout washington insiders very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington.
it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer... cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting. so watch out. i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... ...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.
looking around here i see tablets, laptops, printers, smartphones. they're all connected to the internet. they're all connected. can your network handle all those devices? sometimes. comcast business runs on the nation's largest gig-speed network. so you can get the bandwidth you need to power all of your devices at peak performance. if all of my devices could have that kind of speed, i would be dancing! get started with secure 35-megabit internet and one voice line for just $64.90 per month. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.
some of the biggest stories of 2019 played out in the courts. here is ari melber's look at the top ten legal stories of the year. number ten, r & b singer r. kelly arrested. >> the bombshell involving r. kelly, the music star who has been trailed by allegations of sexual misconduct for years has now been criminally charged with sexually abusing mault multiple underaged victims. >> he is expected to head to trial next year. number nine, mexican drug lord el chapo on trial. >> everything was larger than life. >> the most powerful and notorious leader of the sinaloa drug cartel hi, was convicted on drug and murder charges. >> guilty on all ten counts. >> sentenced to life in colorado supermax prison. number eight, the border crisis. >> breaking news tonight on the humanitarian crisis at the
southern border. >> overcrowding. four showers for 756 immigrant. >> sparking outrage across the country. >> none of us would have our children in that position. they are human beings. >> number seven, the fight over the president's tax returns intensifies. trump going to the supreme court, asking them to block a house subpoena for his tax returns. they are expected to rule in june. number six, trump aides convicted and jailed. >> former trump attorney and fixer michael cohen is now behind bars. >> roger stone was convicted on all seven counts brought against him. stone is the sixth trump aide or adviser to be convicted as part of the mueller investigation. >> number five, president trump gets a new attorney general, bill barr, who emerges to defend the president on the russia and ukraine scandals far more aggressively than his predecessor. number four, financier jeffrey epstein dice in jail. the hedge fund king was arrested
and was facing charges for sex trafficking of minors. >> jeffrey epstein is dead. epstein took his own life while he was behind bars. >> his death now under fbi investigation. number investigation. >> number three, the college admissions cheating scandal. >> this story on the front page of every paper around the country. >> actress felicity huffman pled guilty, others decided to fight. huffman spent 11 days in prison, laughlin going to trial next year. special counsel mueller completes the russian investigation, finding criminal interference and no chargeable election conspiracy. >> long awaited mueller report has just been submitted. perhaps the most highly anticipated and potentially explosive document in recent american history. >> breaking his silence in a pair of appearances, testifying before congress and holding a surprise press conference. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not
commit a crime, we would have said so. >> the top legal story of the year, congress i mpeaches the president. >> the house of representatives is going to vote on the impeachment of a president. >> the house voting to impeach trump on two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. >> it is tragic that the president's reckless actions make impeachment necessary. >> the first president to face such rebuke in his first term, after trump asked ukraine to investigate his rival, joe biden, soliciting foreign interference in 2020. senate leaders plan a trial in january. it has been a year with justice in the headlines, many battles over the principle that no person is above the law. thing. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies.
(clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives.
and everyone has dad's eyebrows! we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs. today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice.
a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.
when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com the unitedllaxin'. explorer card makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com.
tonight, there's new focus on donald trump's support for saudi arabia, after a court delivered what critics called a travesty of justice. that ruling came in the murder of "the washington post" journalist jamal khashoggi. critics at the u.n. call the virds the antiphysis of justice and quote, a mockery. donald trump stood by saudi arabia, despite the murder. sent his son-in-law and treasury secretary to a conference there this fall. the white house made sure to strip out spending measures,
banning arms sales to saudi arabia, and trump has repeatedly praised crown prince bin salman, the man the cia says ordered that murder. joining me, elise lavott. let's talk about the saudi court sentencing. what is your reaction, how has it been playing out? >> reporter: well, ayman, i'm sure you have a similar feeling. we all kind of knew that crown prince muhammad himself wouldn't be implicated, he clearly wasn't on trial here even though the united nations, the u.s. intelligence community believes he ordered jamal's killing. you would have thought with 11 people on trial that some of his closest aides, a top aide and former deputy chief of intelligence by all accounts mastermi mastermind, were the mastermind behind the plot, oversaw it. the fact they were two of the
people along with consul general walked free while five others, hen henchmen got death sentences and jail. you would have thought at least those people would have been also found guilty, and look, as you said, it is playing out exactly as you expected. the united nations, amnesty international, "the washington post" where jamal was a journalist, a columnist all calling this really a travesty of justice, although a senior administration official tonight called it an important step in finding those that were believed to be responsible accountable. >> you know saudi arabia very well, obviously someone who knows it would say it is hard to imagine something like this happened without mbs' knowledge, being the crown prince. he was asked that in a "60 minutes" interview in september. watch what he had to say.
>> did you order the murder of jamal khashoggi? >> translator: absolutely not. >> the cia has concluded with medium to high confidence that you personally targeted khashoggi and you probably ordered his death. >> translator: i hope this information to be brought forward. if there is any such information that charges me, i hope it is brought forward publicly. >> obviously the trial was done in secret, no one knows what evidence was presented in it. is that denial credible do you think? >> reporter: i mean, look, the intelligence community, i trust those analysts, believe he was responsible. if you want to be charitable, i suppose you can say that he wanted jamal problem, he was criticizing the crown prince taking care of, and some of his aides thought this was the way to do it, but look, there's a lot of evidence that clearly must have not been presented in
court that he did have some knowledge of the plan if he didn't order it. >> all right, thank you very much. that does it for me. i hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday. "hardball" with chris matthews is next. ith chris matthews is next. a fair trial. let's play "hardball." good evening, i am chris matthews in washington, with plans for the senate trial stalled, the evidence against donald trump keeps rising. in an explosive new revelation, facts emerge about trump's scheme to extort ukraine for personal gain. we have learned the white house implemented the freeze on military assistance to ukraine just 90 minutes after trump asked the ukrainian president zelensky to investigate his political opponen