will be among his guests. that this sunday on "meet the press." a m a m aman is in for ari. donald trump lashing out over impeachment again. as we begin to see hints of his strategy for coping with the senate trial. a conservative lawyer says rudy giuliani must be called to testify in trump's trial. and then a trump promise crumbles. one of trump's own aides admits they are failing on the border wall. we will get to all of it. we want to begin tonight with the president of the united states adrift as he confronts the biggest crisis of his presidency, a looming impeachment trial in the senate. today, trump attacking speaker pelosi on what else but twitter, accusing her of running unfair hearings, claiming that the senate trial will be rigged, and arguing there was no factual basis for impeachment and that

he'll be exonerated. the president's own words asking a foreign country for dirt on the bidens with a basis of this impeachment. and right now we don't have any details on how the senate trial will look even though mitch mcconnell is coming under fire from a fellow republican senator for promising to coordinate with the white house every step of the way. but other republicans say they don't want to hear the case at all. >> the senator is entitled to her opinion and senator mcconnell is entitled to his. we all see the world from our own bell tower. i will share with you my opinion of what's going on. it's all very odd. 9 out of 10 senators secretly don't want to hear this case. and the 10th is lying. now, many of them are not going to say that publicly, but that's how they feel. >> and another trump ally today

pushing back on one of the most fundamental parts of any trial, witness testimony. >> do you think the public at this point deserves to hear from mick mulvaney and from ambassador bolton about what really happened? do you want to hear what those two people know about this whole incident or does it not interest you? >> i have the transcript of the phone call between president trump and president zelenski so i don't need somebody's thoughts and feelings and assumptions. if we have the transcript, why do we need all these other individuals to talk about their perception of the call? >> maybe for starters because he doesn't have the transcript. the white house actually said it is not a transcript of the phone call. our panel tonight, maya wiley, former counsel to the mayor of new york city, and former watergate special prosecutor jill wooin bek.

>> let me ask you your thoughts about what senator kennedy and senator murkowski said about what they want to see. >> i think this is about whether or not you want the american people to hear the facts or not. it's a much more powerful thing to hear witnesses tell the story out loud to see their faces, to see their demeanor, to see how they respond to questions. that's a very powerful way of having a trial, and it's the way it happens in our judicial system every single day. this is really a political partisan fight about whether or not it's going to really demonstrate what the evidence is to the american people or hide the evidence because, remember, some of what chuck schumer has asked for and what nancy pelosi has said really goes back to people who have first-hand knowledge who were kept from congress because of donald

trump's obstruction. it was obstruction. we've seen no previous president assert this even in the breaking news a week after schumer asked for witnesses. one of the witnesses he asked for turns out had an email exchange 90 minutes after that july 25th phone call saying president wants to freeze this aid to ukraine, and don't tell anybody. i mean, that's exactly the kind of thing that they've kept from congress and they've kept, more importantly, from the american people. and that is what this fight is really about. it's us. >> francesca, let's talk about defendant donald trump and the state of mind he is. as someone who covers the white house day in and day out. he's obviously on vacation but tweeting up a storm. maybe 35 tweets or retweets today, a lot of them targeted at nancy pelosi about impeachment. what kind of state of mind do you think he is in right now? >> well, when the president is

down at mar-a-lago, he's often surrounded by his close friends who usually agree with him on many of the things he's saying. so, he's in sort of an echo chamber where he's putting things out there and they're saying i absolutely agree with you 100%. what we're seeing him doing on twitter is testing out different messages strategies against nancy pelosi. they've referred to whether or not this is urgent, an urgent threat to national security. he said maybe it's illegitimate in the first place, she can't impeach me because no republicans voted for it. i think he's testing out different methods that would play out as congress returns to washington, d.c. one thing the white house has to figure out is how to respond to these senators like lisa murkowski because you don't want to take too heavy of a hand and have her more upset with you. she's made it clear that she's not really okay with that kind of outrage either from the white house or between mitch mcconnell and probably wouldn't be okay

with him reaching out to her. but what do you do about them to shore up people like her and their support. >> what do you think of the way he's tweeting and lashing out to nancy pelosi and the impeachment process? >> i think it's pretty clear that he's distraught and disturbed, that he sees the facts that are coming out, and he doesn't like it. but he's acting in a juvenile way attacking nancy pelosi in the lowest kind of way that he possibly could. it's really sad that they are at this point. and i think going back to what maya said it's so important for a fair trial to be held for americans to be able to hear and for senators who want to vote on the evidence, who want to actually act as a juror should and as their oath requires them. they can't do that unless they hear the witnesses. and you cannot exonerate the president. you can't even remotely claim that he's exonerated unless you

allow him the full evidence. and then you have a full defense. he can call whoever he wants to say the opposite. but unless he lets people come in who actually have relevant first-hand knowledge, this is not something that is irrelevant and has been pointed out, there is no transcript of the call. and what we've heard i would interpret one way and i'm sure the fox news interprets it completely different. so, you do need some explanation and you need the timeline. that's what's so important, the fact that 90 minutes after the call the money was held up by order of the president. that's an important fact. if you don't let the omb witness testify, you can't get that in the record in the trial. the trial is a time for a fair rendition of facts on both sides, and you can't judge without that. let's get down to the facts. it's important to do that. and there's no reason to start a trial if you already know that

the defense is actually the republican party in the senate and that they have no intention of listening to the truth. >> let me play it for you these two republican groups that are running this ad in maine. watch. >> rudy giuliani. >> you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden. >> of course i did. >> mick mulvaney. >> you just described as a quid pro quo. >> there's going to be political influence. >> mike pompeo. >> rudy giuliani delivered files to mike pompeo. >> john bolton. >> a lawyer says john bolton has information. >> call senator collins and tell her these witnesses must testify. >> so, that was an ad run by rule of law republicans. do you think these types of ads, especially when they're being targ targeted in a state like maine going after senator susan collins who may be somewhat vulnerable in the 2020 election cycle, do you think that could have an impact on her and other senators on the fence?

it's possible because what's really happening in the senate is senators are looking at their constituencies. they're not looking at the facts and the evidence. they're looking at the people. the question is are the people concerned? so, to the extent that these ads are demonstrating that there are witnesses that congress has not heard from, that we have not heard from, and that there are real reasons, real grounded reasons why we need to to understand all that happened here, i think it could be persuasive to some who don't necessarily know because they're not following it day in/day out like many of us are. all of the details that paint the picture that make all this so troubling and impeachable. >> let me get your take on this from a democratic perspective which is are the democrats right now doing enough either behind closed doors from your reporting, from what you're hearing in d.c., to try to reach across the aisle to put some type of pressure on the lisa

murkowski's of the world or are they letting the gop sort this out on their own? i haven't heard a lot of public statements by democratic senators praising lisa murkowski or criticizing those who have been silent beyond the lindsey grahams and mitch mcconnells who are way out there on the right. >> the main reason is because d.c. is very, very, very quiet right now. >> some of them are out and about for the holidays. >> i believe that's where that interview took place, in her home state. but lawmakers themselves are not walking the halls of congress right now where reporters are going up to them asking them what do you think about what lisa murkowski said. i do believe we'll see many of that when they return and they'll be pressed, also democrats on their views on this. i think you'll hear a lot more about that. >> the joe manchins and whatever. >> right. but donald trump is also not in

d.c. right now. the white house is quiet too. >> are you expecting that type of campaign or that type of attack to ramp up in the new year as this thing gets going, as the impeachment process gets going? >> as it keeps going in the senate there will certainly be -- there will be advertising from various groups of course, especially aimed at those senators who were in the area where it could go one way or the other. >> jill, let me get your thoughts on something we were discussing briefly last night about witnesses. and obviously there's a big push here to get witnesses. i was talking to nick ackerman about it. he said he would call president trump as the first witness in this process. i'm curious to get your thoughts. if you could call witnesses, how would you go about and who would you go about calling first to build your case? >> i think that i would go with the people who i expected to actually tell the truth. and that would not be president trump. i would not expect him to be honest. so, i would go with someone like

duffy and find out about the timeline. and then i would talk to the witnesses who he also dealt with, anybody he names. i would call mulvaney who's on tape saying what he said. yes, there's a quid pro quo. i would call giuliani who may or may not tell the truth but who is on tape saying yes, i did that with the ukrainians. i would call pompeo. i would call perry. they were all directly involved in this. and so we need to hear from all of them. and then i would give the president a chance after the record is really established so that he's in a box because the facts are already out there. but yes, he should testify. i think the republicans, if they don't call him, how can they say that they've exonerated him? it's -- it's -- the witnesses -- as maya said earlier, it is a question of seeing their demeanor and judging their credibility. that's what juries do every day. and you can't do that by having,

for example, when we had mueller come in to testify, you didn't see the witnesses. and that's been held up. there's so many lawsuits right now. for example, don mcgahn, if he's forced to testify, then -- >> that can be a game changer. >> -- all of this nonsense about absolute immunity falls away. i would wait for that decision, the tax decision, the 6e decision release which i believe will happen. >> you're saying 2020 can be a decisive year in so many ways with all these different processes. jill, francesca, thank you very much. maya i'm going to ask you to stick around. we've got a lot more to talk about. will democrats call rudy giuliani to testify in trump's impeachment trial? one conservative lawyer says it could happen and it could sink donald trump. plus the road to trump's historic impeachment and what to expect in the weeks ahead. now another stunning admission

on trump's signature campaign promise. plus something special at the end of the show. you're watching "the beat" on msnbc. beat" on msnbc. it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner

who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step, 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? quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule.

you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

welcome back everyone. will the democrats demand that rudy giuliani testify in trump's impeachment trial. senator schumer is asking for

mick mulvaney, john bolton, others, but giuliani surprisingly is not on that list. today a conservative lawyer says that democrats must call him in, arguing their case demands it and the public certainly deserves it, saying he is the main first-hand witness orchestrating the execution of the quid pro quo policy. philly rotner argued he would have to testify. it doesn't shield them from testifying full stop. neither the attorney/client privilege nor anything else would shield giuliani from testifying against anyone else he has spoken to. so, he would have to go under oath about this. >> was there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes. i followed the directions of the

president. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelenski. everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. >> the attorney adds that giuliani's conversations with trump would not be fully protected either. with me now former nsa counsel robert deets. let me get both of your perspectives on this. robert, let me talk to you. do you think this is a good idea to subpoena rudy giuliani to testify in any impeachment process? >> yes, do. i think it's a great idea. mr. giuliani has been sort of center stage on so much of the activity and we've heard very little directly from him aside from the occasional press

conference. it puts republicans, i think, in a mind. so, i would think are the a democratic perspective it would be tactically useful. >> let me play devil's advocate for a second. the argument goes if you bring rudy giuliani he's going to also want to then have to discuss or want to discuss hunter biden, bre burisma and try to make that center stage. that's what he's out there investigating, the various conspiracy theories out there. do you open a bit of a pandora's box, by bringing in rudy giuliani you're also going to have to touch those things that have those individuals hauled up in front of the senate. >> possibly. bear in mind that a trial is overseen by the chief justice of the united states, so he would make rulings on relevance and other evidentiary issues including attorney/client privilege. so, there's a bit of a gamble. it seems to me that mr. giuliani is really in the pivot of

everything that happened -- virtually everything that happened with respect to ukraine. >> maya, your take on it. do you think rudy giuliani should be calmed to testify? >> so, i think he is a clear and critical fact witness. and there are so many public statements by him. there are actually numerous. start in may 2019 even before we knew what we were going to learn in july about that july call. so, one of the things that that says to me is two things. one, should we need him to testify? no, because he's already testified to the public in essence. but i also agree that because he's such a central fact witness and because you can essentially cross examine him because of all his public statements, it's much harder for him to lie given how often he has doubled down on, of course i did it, of course i was digging up dirt on the bidens.

i was doing it as a defense attorney in my capacity as donald trump's defense attorney meaning for his personal interests, not those of the country. maybe the country -- at one point he says maybe the country will benefit too making it clear that it's not about us. so, i think for all of those reasons, there's a lot more advantage to having him than to not having him. i think to your point, i think that is a concern for democrats. i think that the record is much stronger often than it comes out in how much evidence there is that there was not wrong doing on the part of the bidens. was it good? no. does it look good? no. was there anything that anyone has ever considered unlawful that joe biden did or from what we can tell that hunter biden did? no. so, they should probably be a little bit more forceful in defending, you know, those points. >> one of the questions i think a lot of people have is the

nature of the relationship that donald trump has with rudy giuliani. you brought up the issue of potential attorney/client privilege. but my question to you is we don't know much about the relationship. so, to what extent does attorney/client privilege when you have somebody who does not -- your lawyer does not represent you in any legal proceedings. i don't believe rudy giuliani has appeared in any court on behalf of the president so far. we don't believe from any of our reporting he has been paid by the president for these investigations although he's out soliciting money from ukrainian oligarchs. so, that's a whole other issue. so, what extent does attorney/client privilege apply for someone who is more of an investigator than an actual attorney for the president. >> let's separate out two things. people have attorney/client privilege with the attorneys whether they pay them or not. sometimes people get free legal assistance. the fact that you are poor and you can't pay for it doesn't

mean you lose the privilege any more than if you're rich and you don't pay for it you lose the privilege. the privilege goes to whether you're giving legal advice. that did you want mean that all the conversations between donald trump and rudy giuliani are protected by attorney/client privilege because the point becomes, one, you don't get protection if you're conspiring together to defraud the united states. that's called a felony. it's a conspiracy. and if you are in a conspiracy with your attorney to violate the law, there's a crime fraud exception that says well you don't get to protect those conversations. but the other issue here -- so, it doesn't matter if there's an investigation or not. it does matter what the communications are about. donald trump himself has publicly said, yeah, i wanted the dirt on joe biden, so there's a lot that you could ask that would not necessarily violate attorney/client privilege or where the privilege would not apply.

>> robert, where do you see this going over the next couple of days? are we going to get bogged down into some politics? are we going to see this play out in the courts with the don mcgahns before it even gets tie trial phase in the senate? >> gee, do you think it could actually become political? yeah, i think it is. but at this stage, what's happening is posturing. remember, mitch mcconnell has not put out any sort of draft rules of how he thinks this ought to play out. until we get that, we're not going to get a very clear picture of how things could happen. if i could just add a gloss to what maya said about the attorney/client privilege, you also lose it when you've disclosed information to third parties. here you've got both the president and giuliani out there all the time talking about what they're up to. you can't -- and the expression is the attorney/client privilege is a shield, it's not a sword. so, i suspect that there would be clear rulings, at least some instances in which the presiding

judge, the jechief justice woul say you lost that privilege. >> thanks for clarifying that. maya wiley, thank you so much as always. the road to trump's historic impeachment and trial questions, back in 30 seconds. d trial ques, back in 30 seconds donald trump is about to go on trial for alleged crimes. what will happen with the witnesses and how long will the

trial actually be? who will the managers be? those are some of the open questions. but here's how we got to trump's historic impeachment. >> i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. >> they are under fire from all sides for this whistleblower complaint. >> what exactly did you hope zelenski would do about the bidens. >> donald trump busted for making good on his infamous claim he would take foreign help in 2020. >> impeachment is imperative. >> the president committed crimes in office. >> so, you say impeach? >> so, that is a thing. >> the case for bribery is straightforward, and everyone knows bribery is impeachable. >> that's why we held up the money. we do that all the time with foreign policy. >> to be clear you just described is a quid pro quo. >> tell me what rule, law, or statute has been violated by the president? >> you want to point to statutes, that's not required.

>> i think for a citizen to set off alarms. >> because that's shady. >> it's pretty damning evidence. >> it goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery. >> it's perfectly wrong. it's bribery. >> a week unlike any other in the trump era. nine different trump administration insider who is joined 12 other witnesses who have now provided over 30 hours of testimony. >> was there a quid pro quo? >> the answer is yes. >> here is the most important shift in all the testimony to date. sondland moves over suddenly saying yes, this was bribery. >> he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. and those two things had just diverged. >> everyone was in the loop. >> his personal attorney rudy giuliani is in ukraine today of all places. he says he's meeting with prosecutors which are also potential witnesses. >> to paraphrase biggie smalls,

he's going going, back, back, to kyiv kyiv. >> this was a crime scene in process and that gives us urgency to act. >> what speaker pelosi and bob mueller couldn't pull off, rudy giuliani is pulling off, getting donald trump impeached. >> the house will do what many said it was on the way to do, impeach donald trump starting now. >> i'm asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> this lawless president has taken advantage of the public trust. >> committing high crimes and misdemeanors. >> you have a constitution that provides for a quick remedy to that. >> you've got president trump who issout nix onning nixon. >> extraordinary breach of the powers of the presidency. >> it is a vote that changes everything. >> joining me now is natasha bertrand. great to have you with us on this friday evening. tell me what you're hearing about where things go next from

here. i know we're all in a holding pattern, but walk us through what may be the next steps in all this. >> yeah, we're not hearing much, ayman. obviously they're out on their break right now, so when they come back from the recess we'll probably be hearing a bit more, especially with lisa murkowski making those comments. senators will probably be under pressure by reporters to weigh in on her claim that she found it disturbing that mitch mcconnell said that he was going to be working hand in glove with the white house. but right now the process really, we don't know what's going to happen because mitch mcconnell is really fighting a two-front battle here, one against nancy pelosi in term of how the senate trial is going to be set up and one against the president as well because mitch mcconnell has said he doesn't want witnesses. the president has said he does. he wants people like hunter biden, the whistleblower, et cetera, to essentially create an alternative reality where the bad guys and the people on trial are actually going to be the democrats and the bidens rather

than the president who was just impeached by the house of representatives. so, with regard to the impeachment managers, we don't even know yet because nancy pelosi has said that she doesn't even want to go there until she figures out whether there's going to be a fair trial and mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer have not come to any kind of agreement that we know of. we still have to wait a bit longer. >> there's no doubt we are in the middle of the holiday break that has prolockngs things. what is speaker pelosi's strategy here? is there any risk, do you get a sense there could be a risk if she holds on to the articles and not officially transmit them over to the senate once congress is back in session? >> yeah, this is obviously a constitutional gray area. it really doesn't say much about when exactly the articles need to be transmitted to the senate or how long the house can delay transferring those articles. but the senate's rules are pretty clear in that they cannot

launch a trial unless those rules are changed without getting those articles from the house. so, nancy pelosi's strategy here i think is really to kind of exploit that gray area and build tension and keep the pressure on mitch mcconnell so that all eyes are really on him and creating a fair trial and making sure that certain documents and witnesses that democrats want are potentially going to be presented so that democrats aren't walking into an ambush and not able to present their case before the senate, before the american people after having gone through the entire impeachment process. but there could be risks there depending on how long she delays it. i don't think it's going to be too long. she knows that it's going to lose momentum. but at the same time, the president is clearly very frustrated. and that's also part of her strategy here is to kind of make him sweat because right now it's not nancy pelosi keeping impeachment in the news. it's the president with his constant tweeting. so, i think she's just kind of letting him sweat it out,

waiting to see what mcconnell does, and when everyone comes back in january we'll probably hear a lot more. >> thanks. ahead a trump official makes a stunning admission about the border wall. admission about the border wall. when we see you enter through our doors, we don't see who you're against, or for, whether tomorrow will be light or dark, all we see in you, is a spark

we see your spark in each nod, each smile, we see sparks in every aisle. we see you find a hidden gem, and buying diapers at 3am. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. we've seen more sparks than we can say. about 20 million just yesterday. the more we look the more we find, the sparks that make america shine. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax.

we're going to build the wall. we're going to build a big, beautiful wall. i will have the most gorgeous wall you've ever seen. an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall. they'll name it the trump wall. that wall will go up so fast your head will spin. we're going to build a wall. >> all right. so, the keyword there -- i don't know if you picked it up -- it's gonna, it's gonna be beautiful, it's gonna be powerful. a bombshell admission from the trump administration, a failure on trump's signature campaign promise. trump's border commissioner

saying it is hard to say if that promise will be met by 2021. >> how many miles of wall has been constructed, not wall that's replacing old wall, but new wall has been built to this point? >> so, 78 miles of new wall has been built. >> how many miles of wall exist where there was no wall whatsoever? >> my response is every mile that's being build is new wall. >> how many miles new where nothing new existed? >> right now the 78 miles that have been built have been built where there was an existing form of barrier. >> today the "los angeles times" mocking trump for still pushing his crazy border wall plan. with me now nbc news reporter, julie ainsley. great to have you both with us. julia, let me begin with you first of all. you cover homeland security,

immigration. so, this has been a signature issue for president trump. but realistically, was this all a promise really that could never be kept? i mean as this thing started going on in his presidency, was it ever expected to be smooth sailing for the president to try to get the money and build this wall? >> well, it's strange ayman because past presidents have been successful at this. under george w. bush there were about 350 miles of border wall constructed. but in the areas that the bush administration left out, there was a reason in a lot of cases. sometimes it was because there was a river there. the rio grande provides a very natural barrier between the united states and mexico. other areas was because of interstate commerce, things needed to stay open. also, a big part of this is that in tex telkas, the majority of land they're looking to build the wall is privately owned. so, the trump administration is running into road blocks where they have to enter into court

negotiations about whether or not they can seize the land and pay later. that's the strategy they have now and it's one that jared kushner laz been assigned to carrying out as he is now kind of the unofficial border wall czar, if you will, by his father-in-law to carry this out. another issue though is the contracts. my colleague and i reported on the fact there's now an inspector general investigation into a company known as fischer sand and gravel that got a $400 million contract to build 35 miles of wall on the southern border, and it turns out they might not be able to carry that through. that's what the inspector general is looking at. and they may have been chosen because of outside influence. the president repeatedly touted that company. >> the swamp is being drained, huh. >> getting swampier. >> how do you think trump voters will react to him not delivering on his signature promise. obviously they've already forgotten they forgot he promised mexico would pay for

the wall. not happening. now they seem to think that the wall is being built even if americans are paying for it. >> it's important to remember if you go back to 2016 a lot of those people at the rallies, when they were interviewed afterwards, they didn't think it was going to happen. they liked the rhetoric behind it. they liked what it represented. so, with trump's base this isn't going to be a problem and trump never wanted to stick to the truth or facts. he's just going to keep saying i'm building a wall. it's going great. >> should democrats use that against him, you promised this and it didn't happen among the other hundred things he said he would do. >> i don't think they need to do that. i think that's baked into the equation. i think if you look at health care as an issue and other kitchen table issues, that would be more advantageous. you can say all donald trump cares about is this stupid wall. meanwhile he shut down the government, hasn't gotten health care done and list all the things. if you want to use it as a

boogeyman scenario that would work. his supporters never thought the wall would be built. >> what is the plan to break through the road blocks you've mentioned and others as well there are out there. >> another road block i should mention is the fact that some of the funding that the administration wanted to use from a defense budget has been held up in court where they said they can't dip into that pot of money. if you can think about almost a year ago when the president said he would reopen the government without congressional funding because he wanted to argue it was a national emergency. that's one road block they have to go through. could they still use the money to buy land but not erect the wall yet? these are things that are being discussed. they also have to look in large part at how long they're willing to spend in court. right now i think what we can't quite understand is why there's this very specific promise by the president and by people at dhs to say they're going to

build almost 500 miles of new wall where no other wall exists by the end of next year when so far none of that has happened over the three years of the trump presidency. there are just more obstacles being raised in the process. >> certainly it's an interesting point. i want to play with you something that ari heard from a trump aide who made the argument that mexico is actually paying for the wall, believe it or not. listen to this. >> mexico is paying a lot for our southern security, and that -- >> with the wall. >> i would call it a virtual wall. >> that's your closing argument? they're paying for a virtual wall. >> what the hell does that even mean? >> it means he's living in a virtual reality. >> seriously what does that mean? >> they're making stuff up. i don't know how else to put it? they're talking about having -- >> maybe julia knows really quickly. i'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but what does he mean, julia? >> if he's talking about it in

one way, it's quite cruel. what mexico is doing is harboring 60,000 asylum seekers who are trying to come into the united states to have their day of court and make their claim and instead mexico is keeping these people in terrible conditions in tent conditions. there are accounts of rape and assault. if that counts as mexico paying for our border security, that's a sad state of affairs. >> i guess he's implying that mexico is not letting them cross and by doing so that is the wall in itself, that mexico is holding on to these migrants. >> perhaps. >> that is one interpretation, a sad one. >> disturbing. >> i thank you both very much. next susan just mentioned the top issue of health care. we have a special guest on that next. hat next when you shop with wayfair, you spend less 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 if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure. as a mom, i knew it had to work. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. i envisioned what it's like for babies to have diapers around them. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. at the end of the day, we are people helping people. even those who don't have a voice. 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. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

we are in a sprint to iowa and democrats are at odds over health care, specifically medicare for all. today george will had a warning for democrats saying a trump victory in 2020 could be because of democrats' ignorance and arrogance when it comes to health care. how is this issue playing out with americans and what is medicare for all? who pays for it? a new msnbc special entitled "red white and who" takes a look at that. it tackles the complex health care for all issue head on. >> what is medicare for all?

there's no exact definition because it doesn't exist yet. the basic idea is that the government runs one national health care program and everybody's on it. private insurance companies are pretty much put out of business and doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists bill uncle sam. copays, premiums, and deductibles would mostly disappear. nothing in life is free. the government needs money to pay for all that care. side effects could include tax, and the government may finally be able to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. >> a brilliant parody. she is the most of "red white and who." fascinating look at the medicare debate in this country. what is it that you learned from going out there speaking to people across the country about it. where is the country now on this

topic? >> i think just responding to pundits and people like george will, i think we all need to kind of do what i did and/or watch the show on sunday americ. health care is one of those topics that voters care so much about and yet we're always told how they think. we never actually talk to them. and so what i learned from talking to them is for example medicare right now it's health care for those 65 and older, super popular. it's been popular. so people i spoke with rodeo cowboys i spoke with in texas, uninsured all their lives, republican voters, it's the best thing ever happened to them turning 65 and so they could get treatment for leukemia, whereas before they couldn't afword the meds month to month and it was expensive. and these were voters who would never be for cuts which republicans have had on the chopping block for a long time. and the other thing i learned is

voters for medicaid, low income, and in 14 states right now republican legislators are holding back on medicaid expansion, which would give millions of americans health care. honestly americans aren't playing this game theory around health care. americans are going bankrupt. americans are losing their jobs and losing their health care. americans are getting sick and okay which billing system corresponds with my insurance versus my husband's. they're wading through it and they feel very alone. >> you had a chance to talk to bernie sanders. this is obviously a signature issue for him. let me play a bit of that exchange. >> how much does medicare for all cost? how many iraq wars? >> that is a great question. >> like 1 1/2? >> that's a hard apples to oranges to me. people say medicare for all is expensive, but if we maintain the status quo, you don't bring in the cost deficiencies that

medicare for all will, there are estimates out there we'll be spending $50 trillion over the next ten years for health care. so we're already spending far more than any other country per person on health care. >> he has stayed pretty consistent on this throughout his career, certainly the last couple of years he got into these types of presidentially ta politics. how has that consistency worked out for him? >> you know, i think he's played the long game, if you will. the guy has been this way his entire political career, and now we're seeing he's helped turn the tide when it comes to health care, and i think the american people are starting to imagine what an overhaul could look like. and in fact from the americans i spoke with, it could look even simpler than what they've got going on right now, which is so intrichet, so complex. >> with the affordable care act

you mean? >> with the affordable care act. you've got your bronze and silver and titanium, and most americans get their health care through their work. what if you lose your job? your health care is only as stable as your job is stable. >> one thing a lot of people can agree on is the current system is definitely not working. thank you so much for this. you can definitely catch that special red white and who this sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. you do not want to miss that. when we're back, we have a surprise for you. you don't want to miss that either. you you don't want to miss that either

if your gums bleed when you brush, you may have gingivitis. and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax.

mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. at chwe're a festive family. we're a four-legged family. we're a get-up-and-go family. we're a ski family. we're all part of the chevy family. and as we kick off the new year, we'd like you to be a part of ours. because our chevy employee discount is still available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. so happy new year, and welcome to the family. the chevy family! the chevy employee discount for everyone ends soon.

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? hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams.

all right, it's friday so you know what that means here on "the beat." it is time to fall back. here's the best of fall back friday this year. and now it's time to fallback. who needs to fall back? >> the pumpkin spice latte? >> the major record labels. >> season 2 of any show. >> people polluting the ocean with plastic. >> if you were going to take a selfie right before you enter the black hole. >> a big investigation -- >> what is the segment called again? >> the first sitting u.s. senator to jump into the fray. >> you know, i do comedy, too. >>iohave good internet, social and dental hygiene. you are always flossing. >> okay. >> is that a joke? >> that's a joke.

>> this is ending toxic masculinity right here. >> get some respect. >> to both our chef, our comedian, our journalist and msnbc moms out there. >> i'm not just history, i'm here with a rapper. >> six members of the legendary woo tang clan. >> you've got to taste this. delicious. >> the rappers and rap language and rap culture. >> that's something we share. >> he's killing a lot of bills. >> which is different, pete, than killing bars. >> i think that's a musical term, right? >> sorry, guys but i'm just sick of old white dudes. like go away. >> okay. >> for a novelist you bring a lot of statistics. >> i'm also a jew.

shalom. >> she got it. >> bird man also said and this is fitting are we finished or are we done? >> that's so profound. >> all right, that does it for me. i'm going to see you here tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern filling in for lawrence o'donnell on the "last word." "hardball" is next. trump outs the whistle-blower. let's play hardball. good evening i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. president trump capped his holiday week with a barrage of twitter attacks on house speaker nancy pelosi. he has tweeted or retweeted sevlt dozen times since thursday taking swipes at speaker pelosi and her district and blasting house democrats over impeachment. but last night trump also retweeted a post by his re-election