tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC January 3, 2020 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
what is shaping up to be a very busy week. in addition to ongoing fall out from the killing of general soleimani, congress will take up where they left off. also on monday we'll be just four weeks away from the iowa caucuses. that is "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> we took action last night to stop a war. >> massive contradictions from the white house. >> we did not take action to start a war. >> as more american forces head to iraq. >> americans in the region are much safer today. >> tonight the fall out from the strike to kill iran's top general, reaction from the region and the dangers of escalation. and "the new yorker" dexter fillkens how the death of soqasm
soleimani is a turning point for the middle east. what look like even more new evidence and how chuck and nancy are trying to keep up the pressure on mitch mcconnell. >> will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not? >> when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. more american air strikes in iraq today and we are suddenly an at extremely perilous moment. following one reckless act by the american president and here's where things currently stand. president trump who has been stewing and vacationing at his personal club in florida awaiting an impeachment trial for abusing his office by attempting to extort a foreign country, to meddle in our next election ordered from that private club in florida a deadly military strike in iraq yesterday, executing an act of war against iran without congressional approval. nbc news has confirmed last night the united states killed iran's most powerful general qassem soleimani in a drone strike at the baghdad airport.
soleimani was the commander of iran's secretive quds force, an elite unit widely believed to support many violent groups throughout the region. in addition to running this force soleimani ran forces in iraq, lebanon, syria making him arguably the most powerful man in the middle east. the strike that killed qassem soleimani has precipitated enormous escalations in tensions between the u.s. and iran and the middle east as a whole. tonight we have news of yet another escalation by the u.s. nbc news reports there's been yet another u.s. air strike north of baghdad targeting more shiite militia leaders, that one killing six people. last night's strike came on the heels of pro-iranian protesters storming the u.s. embassy in baghdad doing significant damage to parts of the compound but thankfully resulting in no injuries or fatalities. the protests were in response to a u.s. air strike that killed at least 25 members of an iran backed shiite militia group in
iraq and wounded dozens. that in turn, a retaliation by the u.s. for a series of rocket attacks that killed a u.s. contractor and injured u.s. service members. all of this in the context of the trump administration's most recent strike in an ongoing campaign to confront iran. donald trump campaigned explicitly of getting out of the iran nuclear deal, a deal the trump administration knew was working, a deal his own administration certified in writing that iran was in compliance with. and then in 2018 donald trump pulled out of the deal and set the u.s. on a path of confrontation with iran. last night after the trump administration unilaterally killed one of the most powerful men in the middle east, a senior government official with a drone strike in a sovereign nation everyone who follows the region closely said what was plainly true, this is massive escalation. this attack was something that could have been done before and was not precisely because of the ramifications of what would come
after. today president trump came out to speak not from the white house but from his personal resort in florida implausibly saying the attack was a deescalation. the pentagon said the same thing. i'm sorry but no one can honestly believe that. here's some of the responses we've heard so far. ayatollah khamenei says a harsh retaliation is awaiting. the u.s. state department has warned u.s. citizens to depart iraq immediately out of concern for their safety. the iraqi government said the attack is a violation of iraqi sovereignty. back in the u.s. republicans are doing a lot of chest thumping while at the same time both democratic and republican members of congress say they were not briefed in advance of the strike. now, the trump administration say they have intelligence that qassem soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on american diplomats and military personnel, and if that's the case they should show that intelligence to us. they should show that intelligence to members of
congress. trump's acting head of homeland security said there are no specific credible threats against our homeland. and including secretary of state mike pompeo repeatedly said on friday the new attacks under general soleimani's leadership were imminent but one defense department official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning said there was nothing new in the threat presented by the iranian general. importantly, this is also in the context of the administration and a president that has been documented ad nauseam every day to lie about everything all the time, even the stupidest most trivial things. it was not even a month ago the president was impeached for abusing the powers of his office and trying to cover it up. there's absolutely no reason for anyone in the u.s. to credit anything the president or his administration says about matters of life or death and war and peace until it is demonstrably verified. full stop. it's a rule for everyone on this
and everything else. joining me now congressman ro khana. congressman, your response to the latest news of another air strike north of baghdad another militia leader apparently targeted on the heels of last night's strike. >> well, we need to understand just killing bad guys isn't making us any safer. if that were the case afghanistan and iraq would be like switzerland. we've been trying this policy. it has not worked. and the question is when are we going to realize this is actually putting americans at more risk, creating more terrorism and increasing the cycle of violence? and as you pointed out it has no constitutional basis. >> had there been briefings to congress what the intelligence was or the rationale was you'd been a party to or your colleagues had been a party to? >> there has been been yet. apparently we are going to be briefed tomorrow or early next
week. the point, though, is there is simply no rationale that one can discern from the public facts. i mean it's not like killing soleimani is going to stop the militias that would actually be undertaking any of the attacks. and if he really was plotting something, why not arrest him? we had intelligence he was going to be at the airport. why not seize him and ask him about the attack ss? there simply is no justification of a strike against him without any congressional approval. >> is it your view this was lawful or unlawful? >> unlawful. it's clearly unlawful. i mean, you've got one of the most powerful generals of iran, a sovereign state and we're basically going and taking him out with no consultation from congress, no approval from congress. there's -- the administration hasn't even given us a clear reason for what the authorization of force would be. i heard someone was saying it's the 2002 aumf.
i mean, that's absurd. it's about as smart as the war in iraq was. i guess that's the only parallel. but how to say congress' approval to get saddam hussein is now approval to go get a top general in iran makes no mistake. >> which brings me to the question what should congress be doing now to constrain escalation further from the president? >> senator sanders and i have introduced a bill that would cut off any funding for any offensive action against iran or iranian officials. it's important to note, chris, that this bill was in the national defense authorization. senator sanders and i supported it. it passed the house. the majority of the senate was for it.
that was a mistake, we need to correct that mistake and assert very clearhy that congress is simply not going to fund a war against iran. >> what is the next step then for congress when you reconvene? >> i think we take up this legislation in the house that says there will be no funding for the president to conduct offensive action against iran or iranian officials. and we should realize congress is not a bystander here. we have the power of the purse. the question is are we willing to use it? we could in the appropriations process say very clearly we're not going to give funds for this kind of action. the challenge is that there are people who get scared. they say we don't want to be seen weak on national security and so congress has punted traditionally to the executive branch. it's time for congress to act with the powers the founders gave us. >> joining me now is democratic congressman max rose of new york, a member of the house
committee on homeland security, and for his service he received a bronze star and purple heart. 3,500 more u.s. service members, a bunch of them shipping out of ft. bragg i think today. where do you see this going? >> first of all let me say this about qassem soleimani. no one should mourn his death. i think about some of the people i served with, some injured by iuds by his direction were placed in iraq. there were 600 soldiers qassem soleimani killed in iraq, but that's not the question. not whether this was justified or not, it's whether this was a wise decision or not. and from that question flows two points. one is where is this intelligence? this intelligence of an imminent threat, where is it? we have got to see it. of course america has the right
to zfs and the president as commander in chief has the right to execute that self-defense, but we need to see it and congress should have been consulted. and secondly if your intent is to de-escalate, then a counter attack is inevitable and it will be on a soft target. it will be somewhere that we cannot expect. it can be a cyber attack, on attack on an embassy, right there where we know the quds force and hel bola hahezbollah agents. what is our plan? we have to a plan when we execute something as significant as this. we will not stop until we can get an acknowledgement of that. >> what does that mean, though, in real sense? what congressman khanna here strikes me as accurate. never going on record for a vote, and then you can put out statements. if you're serious about constraining the president, like
the democrats control the house. >> i'll give you a few things. need to be repealed and replaced so they fit a context. secondly we have to firmly state that if you want to wage war on iran that requires a new declaration of war. >> i've seen folks make the rationale we were in iraq in that sovereign government, there's a right of self-defense, we have a right to strike them there. okay, i'm not going to question that either way, but is it not the case that assassinating, killing, air striking a senior government official in the iranian government, a government we don't have diplomatic relations with and have a very tense relationship with is an act of war? >> it depends how you look at
qassem soleimani. i don't think that does his role justice in terms of what he has done over the last 20 years as he's led power military and terror organizations throughout the region. so there is an expansive authority for self-defense if you are considering what these shia militias were doing in iraq. but consider this, we cannot forget about isis in this context. it was not too long ago we were coordinating or implicitly partnering with shia militias. the pathway to stability has not been solely through military action. it's been through politics and negotiation. we put the sons of iraq on our payroll, a suny militia. we've got to realize if we want long-term stability in the region yes we've got to have a military footprint but it comes through diplomacy and american leadership.
>> at this moment that military footprint is in jeopardy. the iraqi parliament -- the iraqi prime minister and president have both condemned the air strikes, yet another militia leader. there is good reason on a vote essentially to boot out american military presence in iraq. >> and we've seen that before. after this decision this is donald trump's middle east. this is decision of incredible consequence. i believe as a member of congress we do have a be respectful of the fact they claim they have intelligence, although every day we go without seeing it, i grow suspicious. but with that being said this will only get more complicated, and we need to have a plan for deescalation, not a plan for escalation. >> final question, is what has -- the u.s. done in the last two days, escalation or deescalation? >> well, it depends because this was not the first step of escalation. there were a series of steps of escalation previous to this executed by both soleimani as
well as larger forces at hand. the deeper question, though, is what happens tomorrow because there are certain things as i've said that are inevitable whether it's an attack on an embassy, a cyber attack, an attack on a jewish community in eastern europe or a soft target here in america, that will be a fork in the road. and that is the question whether we wage war or not. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. up next into understand the massive implications you need to understand who qassem soleimani was. i'll talk to a journalist who spent a lot of work piecing together those details in two minutes. work piecing together those details in two minutes. [ panting ]
soleimani played in shaping the middle east for decades. and since that profile came out soleimani's influence in the region had only grown laurjer. his rise was aided the disputably by the u.s. invasion of iraq which weakened iran's biggest enemy and counter balance. the invasion helped soleimani to consolidate control and his home base in iran was soleimani was head of the elite branch of the quds force to iraq where he directed iranian backed militias and imported bombs responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans. in syria he was largely responsible for the survival of bashar al assad providing troops and supplies and in lebanon he helped develop and prop up the group and in yemen in the
devastating civil war which has been first and foremost ruthlessly pursued by saudi arabia, soleimani helped prop up the houthi rebels. the person overseeing this whole project of extending the force with qassem soleimani and now the united states has killed him. i'm joined by by dexter. what was the quds force and the role soleimani played? >> it was huge. it all goes back to the end of the iranian iraq war. a million people dead in that war. >> a complete -- house for everyone involved. >> totally. and at the end of that war it
basically ended as a stalemate and the iranians said we're not going to let that happen again and essentially created what you described which is this sphere of influence that reaches from tehran all the way through the mediterranean through syria, iraq, hezbollah, assad, the militias, everything you talked about. that's soleimani's vision, and the huge thing that changes is the iraq war. i mean one thing the fall of the sudaud hussein regime and the new regime that comes after is part of the first domino of him coalescing this regional -- >> the american invasion. yeah, well it basically was a big opportunity for him. and so when the americans went in basically they empowered the shiite majority. and soleimani stepped in and empowered, created, directed, armed, trained these shiite militias. but during the american war they
killed hundreds of americans. and that was soleimani like pulling the levers. and there was a particular thing called an efp, explosively formed pen traretrator, really y lethal leds and they could penetrate armor, and those were made in iranian factories by the hundreds. >> let's talk a bit about the militias because he was traveling with a militia leader who was killed, another shia militia leader was apparently struck in this air strike. what role do they play in the iraqi state? >> well, it's weird because that role has changed. these guys were enemies, i mean the guy who was killed last night was a sworn enemy of the united states. and then when isis took over a large part of iraq they became our friends because they're shia, they wanted to fight the sunies and we basically
coordinated with them. >> we have this alliance and soleimani too is also leading part of the fight against isis. >> i think they described to me it as a cooperation without coordination, so it was a very thin difference there. but then when isis was defeated, then you have all these shiite militias which are leftover, heavily armed and still acting at iran's direction. so they became players in the iraqi state. they could basically act as political parties with guns, and that's basically what they were doing. but once isis was defeated they turn back on us and we turn on them, and that's kind of where we are today. >> what do you see happening now? >> oh, man, you know, it's hard to look into the crystal ball, but -- >> what interest the consequences here? >> well, the iranians have to respond. they have to respond. the this is one of the most powerful people in the country, and he's responsible essentially for their foreign policy and for
basically defending the revolution as they see it. and so they've got a respond a credible blow to them, a body blow to the iranian regime. so it's going to be difficult for them. a person would respond is gone. it's not clear who's going to step in but soleimani was a really extraordinary character. he was highly intelligent, a great battlefield command, something of a cowboy but at the same time he could walk in a room and talk to politicians. super sophisticated, highly intelligent, and he could do it all. and it's not clear they have anybody like that, so they're going to hurt for a while. i don't think they're going to do it iraq. why would they do it in iran? they can strike practically anywhere in the world, and they've shown that in the past, thailand, nigeria, latin america. they can do it all over the
place. >> dexter, thank you so much for being with me tonight. still ahead some pretty interesting impeachment developments today including a dust up on the senate floor, potential new evidence as well. and coming up president trump's decision to do what two other administrations deemed too risky because of the potential fall out. what happens now after this. ote out. what happens now after this. where did it come from? you know i'm not sure. who's peter samuel?
america is in a much safer place and literally as he went on tv making that case the state department was telling americans to get out of iraq. quote, dedoo due to heightened tensions in iraq and the region the u.s. embassy urges u.s. citizens to depart iraq immediately. you can read it in the pent fwn statement released, quote, the strike was aimed at deterring future iranian attack plans. early signs were at the u.s. strike was not as almost everyone expects it will, then the strike by its very definition as failed according to the trump administration. and the world is not a safer place. in fact as many noted today including congressman who notably worked as a shia military analyst in the cia before coming to congress, quote, what always kept both
democratic and republican presidents from targeting soleimani himself was a question. in other words, would the cost outweigh the benefits, and they never did until now a famously reckless individual, a president of the united states. joining me now to talk about this ambassador wendy sherman who was the lead u.s. negotiator for the 2015 iranian nuclear deal and the u.s. ambassador to iraq from 2007 to 2009 and who during his time in iraq had to deal with intermediaries to qassem soleimani. let me start with you. how do you anticipate this cost' benefit analysis shaping up and the cascading effects from the strike? >> this is another turn in what really is a very long war. when i was out in iraq as ambassador during that period, '07, '09 as you've heard from
others in the show soleimani was basically directing attacks against our troopers, using some very sophisticated weapons. and he killed a lot of our soldiers, hundreds of them. so is this a declaration of war? hardly. it's simply another step in a long war. and i don't think we can do the calculus just yet. this is by no means the last move. i expect the iranians will do something. and then it'll be back to us. so what i worry about here is not the immediate consequences of soleimani's killing. and i've got to tell you from my perspective if anyone ever needed to be killed it was him. it's the consequences. what's next? is there a forward strategy by the administration? do they have an iran team setup and ready to go? you know, based on what we've seen of administration actions in other areas i'm skeptical, and we're going to be in for a
long haul. >> ambassador sherman, to take a step back here i mean when we're talking about the sort of the ambassador said one more move in a long war, there was a real change in the u.s. and iran relationship under the obama administration. there had been no diplomatic relations. obviously there still are none after the famous embassy kidnapping and hostage situation. you were part of a team that put together the nuclear deal. when you look at the decision to exit that deal and what has resulted from that decision how do you see that? >> well, i see it as terribly awful for the national security of the united states and safety and security of americans all over the world. we're about to have the next sequence of events unfold and it's an escluatory cycle that is not leading in a good direction. i kind of agree qassem soleimani was a horrible, horrible person who did real damage to america,
to the stability of the middle east. that said, president bush, president obama did not take actions to take him out because they understood what the consequences were, and one has to make that calculus. the joint comprehensive action, the nuclear deal got started when president barack obama in his address said i will reach out my hand if you unclench your fist because he knew as bad as iran was if it had a nuclear weapon it would be able to deter our actions in the middle east to protect and work with our partners and allies. >> on that point, ambassador crocker, in sort of the broader sense of international relations right now, isn't the lesson here for anyone they better get a nuclear weapon when they look at how the u.s. has reacted to north korea versus what's happened in libya and iran, libya famously giving up in nuclear program, iran voluntarily entering into this deal. after an exit from that deal the
u.s. has assassinated their commander, and the president of the united states talks about the love letters he gets from kim jong-un and how wonderful he is. >> this is an administration to put it mildly that is hardly consistent, and that's part of the problem. let me say this about the nuclear agreement as a professional diplomat for many years. i think that was an outstanding achievement and ambassador sherman was absolutely key to its success. it did make the world a safer place, and i think the trump administration made a major mistake in repudiating it. in terms of the message it sends to wanna be or almost are nuclear powers i think is again complex. we don't seem to have a strategy in north korea, and we're kind of seeing that play out. in the case of iran i'm reminded of something that the late prime
minister of israel said also that we will negotiate peace with the palestinians as though there were no terror and we will fight terror as though there were no negotiations. and the one fault i would find was the obama administration's iran policy is that for the sake of negotiations and agreement, they didn't really challenge what the iranians were doing elsewhere in iraq and syria and of course in yemen. that i think, too, is a mistake. so in terms of taking soleimani off the field as dexfer filkins said earl, it's going toven a actual impact there's no question. i think that's a basic good. what i want to see is has this administration got a plan, because it's going to take a plan. there are going to be a number of moves ahead we're going to
have to be ready for and prepared to counter. >> i have heard critiques about having a plan for the entiry of my adult life. i was 21 years old when september 11th happened, 22 years old and for 19 years, the longest period in this republics history we have been at war, and i've heard endless critiques of a lack of plan, there was no plan after iraq. and what we have had is unfathomable amounts of war and bloodshed and the loss of american service members life and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the middle east dead and trillions of dollar spent and the same conversation over and over and over again about which new military action is going to put us in a better direction. >> i quite agree with you, chris. i have enormous admiration for ambassador crocker who has served us for so many years. he's one of those extraordinary
foreign service officers who has really kept us safe in so many places in the world, and he's right we have to look at the entire landscape when we deal with these very difficult issues. but i think he would also agree there's no doubt that president obama's efforts to have a nuclear deal so that we could then focus -- maybe we should have focused sooner in ambassador crocker's view in different ways on the other nefarious acs of iran. but we still had a lot of tools in our toolbox to do that, and we were trying to do exactly what you're asking for which is war no more. to have a channel with iran so that when things came up that might escalate out of control we had a channel of communication. that doesn't exist anymore. >> wendy sherman, ryan crocker, thank you both for sharing your expertise tonight. i truly appreciate it. coming up iran is vowing harsh retaliation while iraq calls the air strike a dangerous escalation.
how they might respond next. escalation how they might respond next. this round's on me. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence
the iranian government tonight is vowing revenge in the wake of that air strike. they named a new commander to take charge of the quds force, the military unit soleimani led until yesterday. promising harsh retaliation and waiting to see the response expecting there will be a response. meanwhile the iraqi parliament
plans to hold an emergency session to address the attack, an official iraqi attack tweeting in eshlish quote carrying out operation on iraqi sile is flagrant violation of iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation. here with me now to talk about what happens next back from an interview with the ambassador to inu.n. let me start with you because you were just in that interview with the iranian ambassador to the u.n. what is the official posture of the iranian government right now? >> i think the official posture is that iran will retaliate and this is an act of war. and as an act of war iran reserves the right to retaliate at a time of their own choosing. there will be a retaliation, and he won't get into what kind of retaliation or where or how, but
there's no question there will be retaliation of probably a military sort. >> well, there's a real sort of -- there's discussions now about how their perspective on this is in that these are also rational actors and a bunch of calculations to make are, and also i think fair to say do not want an escalatory cycle thal spins out of control. and there's some thinking there what that would mean in response. >> when there's military response the iranians look at this as you took out one of our top military officials, we reserve the right to react violently to that action. rather than like, you know, pulling out of the nuclear deal. >> right, a military response. >> it doesn't mean their military is going to go to war with the u.s. military whether
in iraq or anywhere else in the middle east, but it means there will be a violent response. >> i thought of you saying that today because we've thought throughout the years and talked about iraq. and the context for this moment is there's been these incredible protests in iraq, this sort of amazing up rising against corruption and iranian and american domination and the sort of pro-national sovereignty for iraq. and what does what happened last night mean for iraqi civil society? >> well, there are kind of responses in iraqi's streets today. there are those who are angry, those who are happy and those who are worried. those who are angry are backed by iranian militias or supported by iranian government, militias in iraq that are very strong, helped liberate iraq fromesis. so, you know, they are strong and a good chunk of iraqis. but the ones who are happy have worried are the two kind of iraqis who have actually been
dominating the streets of iraq in the last few months and the most amazing secular, liberal, national revolution led by the youth. people were courageously going out in the streets. we are one country, calling out the corruption of religious leaders and government officials saying we want a new election law. we do not want any sectarian government, we want a leader and now they are debating who should be the prime minister of the iraq. so there's a movement towards progress with these demonstrators. those demonstrators right now are divided. those who are worried are saying we do not want the proxy war happening in iraq, we are exhausted. hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died and since the last
u.s. invasion, and so we do not want anymore wars for god sake and then there are those who are saying if the u.s. is going to >> narrator: vene come but intervene fully, and come and occupy and take over and get rid of the iranian backed militias and all that. the point is there's so many points in there there's a secular civil movement in iraq that we don't know its status right now so the government may say enough of that, go back home. so that's a very likely chance in here. but we also have iraqi shias, that whole narrative supporting all of these things have stopped. now a lot of them saying we do not want iranian intervention in our soil. >> there's also -- the iranian government is under incredible pressure and stress, too. there were protests and there were ratcheting up of sanctions which had a material effect on average iranians.
there's lots of things america has done to make the lives of iranians miserable. what does that mean in terms of, like, their calculation of what to do next? >> well, i think that a calculation is going to be based on what the iranian government feels the people of iran care about. and right now it seems at least the majority of the people of iran want some form of revenge. i'm not saying all iranians do. >> there's some rally around the flag. >> there's always going to be a rally around the flag. imagine if you will if a foreign government assassinated somebody we don't like that as a democrat we dent like. you would still say that's not okay. >> correct. >> i do not want john bolton killed by a foreign government. our top general who prevented isis from coming to iran and prevented isis from getting past iraq, actually defeated -- help
defeat haegs has been assassinated by the u.s. government, quite proudly by the u.s. government. so i think that effect is there. and i would disagree with what ambassador crocker said, i don't think they've been necessarily weaker. this is huge blow. this is huge emotional blow i believe for the iranians but they're very deep. the revolutionary guard commanders they kind of like pop up. what are you going to do? play whack amole with the iranian revolutionary guards so these are not people who are not aware of -- were not aware of what the policies, the plans were. and if those plans were set in stone by soleimani, they will continue. >> thank you both for that. >> just ahead a reminder while all of this is unfolding the president's awaiting an impeachment trial in the senate. the latest in the impeachment of president trump coming up. the latest in the impeachment of president trump coming up.
marie could only imagine enjoying freshly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? for all-day, all-night protection. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine.
i may be in our regular studio tonight but next friday we'll be back in studio 6a in front of a live studio audience. we're kicking off the year with three friday audience shows in a row starting friday january 10th. if you're in the new york area this month you're in luck. tickets for available right now for three dates. all you need to do is head to
allin.msnbc.com to claim yours. when we come back there's been a ton of news about the extortion scheme that led to impeachment of president trump. all the new details and how they play in a senate trial after this. w details and how they play in a senate trial after this 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.
we still do not know when the impeachment trial of donald j. trump, just the third in american history will begin. the senate reconvened today with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell saying if the house will not send over the articles of impeachment then the senate will just not hold a trial. shuck schumer responded demanding mcconnell allow witnesses in the president's trial. >> we are not asking for critics of the president to serve as witnesses in the trial. we are asking only that the president's men, his top advisers tell their side of the story. >> today house speaker nancy pelosi who is holding back those articles of impeachment until mcconnell agrees to some basic ground rules for a fair trial
said, quote, today leader mcconnell made clear he will feebly comply with president trump's cover-up of abuses of power and be an accomplice to that cover-up. meanwhile today we learned of additional evidence on its way to the house. saying that rudy giuliani's indicted associate lev parnas can give impeachment investigators phone data and documents seized by proskoorts in his criminal trial which parnas' lawyers say are relevant to the impeachment inquiry. for more i'm joined by natasha bertram. it's hard to know how significant it is. what do you think? >> i think it's a pretty big deal. i don't think it's entirely unexpected to be honest the judge would rule this way. but they're very eager to cooperate because lev parnas really wants friends. the president has turned on him. he's no longer in contact really with rudy giuliani or his other associate, igor fruman, so he's trying to get a good deal here. he does not want to go to jail.
he wants an immunity deal, and he's trying to give house democrats everything they want essentially whether it be tape recordings which he says he has, audio recordings on his iphone, text messages, e-mails et cetera so they can tell a court he's been cooperating with them and they should go easy on him essentially. whether or not it's produced before the senate reaches any kind of verdict on trump's impeachment remains to be seen. >> larger issue that strikes me here is the documentary record as it stands is incomplete. just over the last few weeks we've gotten documentary evidence, the president directing the hold himself, that dod was worried about unlawfulness. you have to wonder what other documents are out there that right now the house is not turning over. >> chris, just in the last 20 minutes "the new york times" broke a story saying that the office of management and budget has refused to turn over 20
pages of e-mails sought by "the new york times" in a freedom of information act lawsuit between a top aide to acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and omb discussing the hold on ukraine aid. they would it would inhibit the free kind of flow of information between officials that allow policymaking decisions to be conducted. so here we have yet more of concealment from the administration on issues related directly to what the president asked for regarding this ukraine aid, how it all played out, and this goes a step beyond them just redacting e-mails. they're actually refusing wholesale to turn over any of the documents they've requested. >> that's amazing because they just got caught, right, because of the story we brought you last night and the justsecurity getting access to those unredacted versions. when they complied with foya under a judge's order and now they're using an executive
privilege argument to try to with hold 20 pages of e-mail snz. >> essentially, yeah. and coincidently or not one of the officials who's a participant from the documents being withheld from omb robert blaire, he's the one who told the pentagon explicitly the order to with hold aid was coming directly from potus. he clearly had insight into the decision making there and that's why his testimony is being sought. >> we've got a road map here and documentary evidence they're not turning over and also we have these witnesses. is there any movement in this stand off between the two branches of congress? >> not so far. >> it's kind of just in limbo at this point because mitch mcconnell is saying he's not going to start anything until the senate -- until the house sends the articles of impeachment and chuck schumer and nancy pelosi have said these articles won't be sent until
mitch mcconnell agrees on the rules. so there's no path forward here we can see. >> thank you. that all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. so it all came to light in 2011, in october of 2011 with this indictment in federal court in the southern district of new york. and with this surprise midafternoon news conference from the u.s. department of justice, a news conference attended by both the attorney general himself and the fbi director at the time as well as the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and other justice department senior officials, the plot they described at this news conference and the plot that was described in that indictment was so over the top it almost didn't seem serious. it was such a like
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on