Skip to main content

tv   AM Joy  MSNBC  January 26, 2020 7:00am-9:00am PST

7:00 am
that's it for me. the secret is i moved to weekends just so i could spend more time with joy reid. thank you for watching. "am joy" with my buddy joy reid begins right now. lawyer lawsuits? lawyer lawsuits? we're talking about the impeachment of a president of the united states duly elected, and the members, the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? the constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. it's disrespecting the constitution of the united states to say that in this chamber, lawyer lawsuits. good morning and welcome to "am joy." that rant you just heard from donald trump's personal lawyer jay sekulow encapsulates trump's world strategy for his impeachment trial. that is, avoid all the overwhelming evidence in the case and winge about the process.
7:01 am
that performance happened minutes after house manager congresswoman val demings went point by point explaining the democrats' rationale for seeking evidence the white house is withholding. but sekulow apparently misheard what congresswoman demings said and hence the fulmination. let me play you what she said. >> the president's lawyers may suggest that the house should have sought these materials in court or waited further lawsuits under the freedom of information act, a/k/a foya lawsuits. any such suggestion is meritless. >> okay. so congresswoman dem mince said foya lawsuits, spelling out what it stands for, freedom of information act.
7:02 am
even i know that's a perfectly standard legal thing. here is how you get a chance to experience how trump world works. sekulow who is a lawyer was likely soon corrected as to his embarrassing mistake, but rather than just admit it, he did what trump world does, they always double down. here is "the washington post" reporting about that bizarre moment tuesday. what's even more remarkable about the flap is the white house actually stood by sekulow's allegation, asked about the remark by reporters later in the night, eric yule land reportedly walked away only to return a while later apparently after checking and suggested that sekulow had not erred. okay. now, i leave it to your imagination to anticipate the many potential flavors of alternative facts we'll get from trump's lawyers when the senate impeachment trial resumes tomorrow. what is clear is when they're done, we'll once again be left asking why are trump and his republicans so adamant about
7:03 am
withholding evidence and refusing to hear from witnesses whom they also say would totally absolve the president of wrongdoing. here is how congresswoman demings put it during her presentation last week. >> as a career law enforcement officer, i have never seen anyone take such extreme steps to hide evidence allegedly proving his innocence. the president is engaged in this coverup because he is guilty, and he knows it. he knows that the evidence he is concealing will only further demonstrate his culpability. >> joining me is house impeachment manager and congresswoman val demings. congress would plan, thank you so much for being here this morning. >> good morning, joy. good to be with you. >> thank you so much. >> very many people were
7:04 am
impressed by yourself and the house manager in the meticulous case you put forward. a lot of it is like a trial. neither of us are lawyers. you are a former law enforcement officer, former police cheief. you know how legal cases come about. in your experience as a former law enforcement officer, have you ever seen a person get indicted and go to trial and their defense refuse to have any witnesses on their side? >> joy, having been in law enforcement for 27 years, and i have put a lot of cases together that we further had to defend in court, i have never seen in any trial in florida, or heard of any across the nation where the defense attorneys basically refuse or were not interested in calling additional witnesses or
7:05 am
bringing forth supporting documentation, especially in those witnesses and documentations could share light on their client's innocence. but we have seen, as you know, the obstruction started with the president himself where he refused to allow current administration officials from participating in the house's investigation and even former administration officials from participating in the house investigation and refused to submit any document. so to answer your question again, i have never seen any trial in anyplace or heard of any like this one. >> just to stay on this for one more moment. let's say i was indicted for embezzleme embezzlement, right? the company that i worked for and was accused of embezzling didn't find out for a while. once they did find out, i gave the money back and shredded all
7:06 am
the documents that would have shown i embezzled money. would i still be arrested and charged with a crime? >> i can tell you you better know you would. that's what's so amazing about this president. when he is caught, and that's basically what happened here, if the whistle-blower had not come forward, the president could have quite possibly gotten away with the scheme that had been going on for months. he did not anticipate the whistle-blower. so when he got caught, he doubles down and then he goes to a microphone and basically invites ukraine again and china to interfere in the election, somehow believing, if he commits his wrongdoing or his crimes in public or plain view, then it's okay. the part about the money. well, ukraine eventually received the money, so what's the big deal. you're absolutely right, if the company you worked forgot their money back you tried to 'em basel, you better believe you would be held accountable.
7:07 am
so i send this message again very strongly to the president and his defenders, nobody is above the law up to and including the president of the united states. >> beyond the acted of it, whi was so shocking that the president would try to extort a foreign country and hold back money, cash for dirt kind of scheme, one of your fellow house managers put it. why should your constituents care about any of this? why should they care what donald trump did to ukraine? >> i thank you for that question because i know that the president and his defenders are trying to push this narrative. if you don't believe this, then let me try that, the smoke and mirrors. the distortion of distractions. the bottom line is, ukraine is an ally of the united states of
7:08 am
america. ukraine has lost 15,000 people, killed in this war against russian aggression. ukraine's ability to fight russian aggression is directly tied to our national security and our national security interests. if ukraine has the ability to fight russian aggression, then it prevents us from having to fight russian aggression. so we are directly tied. our national security, our national interest, public policy interests are directly tied to ukraine's ability to defend itself. >> you're a state -- i lived there for 14 years. a lot of concern among floridians about the sanctity of elections. do you trust this president to guard this next election against foreign interference? >> we have absolutely no reason to trust this president. matter of fact, he was in florida during the campaign when he made his first plea for
7:09 am
foreign interference. when he said, russia, if you're listening, i hope you can find the 30,000 clinton emails. and then the day after, joy -- and this is what is just baffling to me, even with my law enforcement experience. i think i've seen it all, but this president continues to top a lot of what i've already seen. the day after mueller testified, when this president thought he had somehow gotten away with something, he gets on the phone with ukrainian president, very anti-corruption reformer and invites him to investigate his political opponent and also push a false narrative about ukrainian's interference in the 2016 election and not russia. and then, when he was caught, he doubles down and heads to the microphone and publicly invites foreign powers to interfere in our elections. so, quite frankly, we've talked
7:10 am
a lot this week about what's reasonable and what makes common sense. we have no reason to believe that this president would protect the integrity of our elections. u.s. elections should be decided by the american people, and we are going to do everything within our power as house managers to make sure we do protect that very sacred right for every individual. >> i'm not going to play it because we don't have a lot of time, and i want to get as much time with you as possible. we now have audio that abc news uncovered that appears to show lev parnas talking to donald trump who said he didn't know lev parnas about the former ambassador marie yovanovitch, saying get rid of her, fire her, saying that to his donor, lev parnas. do you believe lev parnas should be called as a witness and do you think he will be? >> even in the house on the house side when we were involved in the inquiry, a lot of my
7:11 am
colleagues on the other side that, you know, we needed to hear from fact witnesses and other witnesses who had direct knowled knowledge. i would think now that we're on the senate side -- if they're interested -- let me say this, joy. the evidence against this president is overwhelming. overwhe overwhelming. i would think the senators as judges would want to hear the full and complete story, would want to hear from every fact witness. while we're still going through what mr. march nas had parnas h. what happened to ambassador yovanovitch was disgraceful. serving under both republican and democratic administrations and served well. but then to hear the audio and what really -- if it's authenticated, what bothers me the most, joy, is this line, take her out.
7:12 am
as a former law enforcement officer that line usually comes out of the mouths of gangsters or mobsters or gang members. so we cannot take this lightly. we need to take this very, very seriously. certainly mr. parnas appears to have direct information as well as mick mulvaney, as well as john bolton, as well as mr. blair, as well as mr. duffy. i would think the senators would want to hear from them. >> i'll play quickly from the audience. this is lev parnas talking to donald trump about how long ukraine would last without our help. take a listen. >> how long will they last in a fight with russia. >> without us, not very long. >> without us. >> we know lev parnas is a constituent in your state. he's a florida person, a lot of florida people swirling around this. the "palm beach post" put out an editorial calling on the two senators from florida, rick scott and marco rubio to show some spine and call for
7:13 am
witnesses. rick scott has come forward and said the case that you all made -- he used a rather strange term that you guys were knee-capped. does that sound like the senators are doing their jobs as impartial jurors when senator rick scott says you all were kneecaped by trump's defense oop? >> joy, let me just say this. every senator including the two senators from florida, they took an oath when they were initially sworn in to office, but then before this trial began, they had to take a second oath, swearing that they would do impartial justice. like any trial in any courtroom all over this nation, they should want or demand to hear from additional witnesses and see supporting documentation. i would expect certainly the two senators from florida to do
7:14 am
that. i would like to see them lead the way on calling additional witnesses. but i expect every senator who has taken that oath to follow through and deliver impartial justice. >> normally we don't read donald trump's tweets on this show. i don't know that it's edifying to the audience. in this case i want to have you react to something he tweeted. it's about the lead impeachment manager that you've been working with. he says shifty adam schiff, using a dog toif term, calls him a corrupt politician and probably a very sick man. this is the president of the united states. he has not paid any price yet for what he has done to our country. does that sound to you like a threat? what do you make of that kind of communication from the president of the united states towards a fellow citizen and toward a united states congress person? >> joy, regardless of what -- to your listening audience,
7:15 am
regardless of what party they're in and what their politics are, they cannot forget that what you just read is coming from the president of the united states, and that is just one example. adam schiff as well as house managers, as well as the president's lawyers, as well as every senator in the chamber. they're doing their job. adam schiff has done an exceptional job in terms of leading this case against the president which is -- the evidence is overwhelming. it's interesting that the president has not talked specifically about the case, and yet he continues to hurl his insults. i would just say to the american people, this is totally inappropriate. it is totally a threat, if you
7:16 am
will, against the process of this investigation and of this trial. we are defenders of the constitution. and regardless of what inappropriate comments or tweets or things come out, or threats that come out of the president, out of the white house, we will continue to do our job. >> congresswoman val demings, thank you very much for your time many morning. >> thank you. up next, i'll bring in my panel to continue this discussion. it's tough to quit smoking cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives,
7:17 am
you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.
7:18 am
doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? the most common side effect is nausea. memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
7:19 am
7:20 am
when it came to removing the president, their arguments became very political, very shrill. while adam shift did a good job presenting the facts and at times the law, when it came to removing the president, he's got to go right now is more of an audition for a future senate run than it was compelling. but what happened yesterday, in two hours the senate -- the president's defense team destroyed the narrative created in 21 hours regarding process and substance. >> moments ago donald trump's chief senate defender lindsey graham praised the president's legal team's opening arguments. president trump expected to appear on his favorite channel
7:21 am
this morning. right now, my panel. author of moving forward. jill vine banks, foermer white house special prosecutor and author of "the watergate girl." jill, i want to know if you share lindsey graham's view. >> the democrats accuse the president of leveraging security assistance to force president zelensky announce investigations. but how can that possibly be when ukraines are not even aware that the security assistance was paused? their there can't be a threat without the person knowing he's being threatened. >> to say that the president of the united states did not -- was not concerned about burden sharing, not concerned about
7:22 am
corruption in ukraine, the facts from their hearing, the facts from their hearing establish exactly the opposite. >> the subpoenas weren't authorized because there was no vote or the subpoenas were to senior advisers of the president who are immune from congressional compulsion or they were seeking testimony without the agency counsel. >> those are the three basic arguments they're making. i want to go through these quickly. the deputy white house counsel, the democrats -- they can't have been a quid pro quo or can't have been a strong arm attempt because ukraine didn't know. your thoughts on that? >> that is ridiculous. he did a very good job in delivering that argument. his presentation was good, but his grounds were wrong. if i embezzle from you and you don't know about it, have you been embezzled? yes, you have. the same thing is certainly true
7:23 am
for this. you can absolutely demand something without the person knowing that you're withholding it. but i believe the evidence presented is quite clear that ukraine knew it wasn't being withheld. common sense tells you that. this was important to them, lives were on the line, people were dying because they didn't have the aid they needed, and they knew it had been approved by the senate. they knew it had been approved totally by defense, they had been cleared and they didn't have it. where did they think it went? they knew it wasn't there. besides, they were being told all the evidence presented showed as early as july, they were told and knew that the aid was being held. so thatjust falls apart on the s and the law. >> ambassadors and state department people who testified in the house hearings said that they knew. the second argument being that donald trump -- the hearings
7:24 am
established he was concerned about corruption and burden sharing even though he never said that in his perfect call, so-called fake transcript, not even a transcript, a memo. he never said anything about corruption. >> sondland said the only thing he cares about is the big thing. the big thing to him is the biden investigation. he wants to blacken the name of biden, and this senate trial is bound and determined to try to accomplish what he failed to get there? he may have been concerned about burden sharing in general, and he may have been concerned about who knows what else. that isn't what motivated him to hold ukraine aid. he released it two times before without any problem when there wasn't even a good president. now we know that sernz ll zen ss a crime fighter. but he held it up because biden was taking over in the polls. biden is the candidate he saw as the most dangerous to him, as the one who could take votes
7:25 am
away from him. so he was bound and determined to hurt him and interfere in the 2020 election. even if he cared about something else, it doesn't matter if you act in a corrupt attempt to interfere for another election. >> there's a law that says you have to spend the money when congress ap eights it. also the third one, very quickly, before i bring the rest of the panel in. a lot of the lawyers sitting together here on a different dias in this studio, the one most helpful to people who want to acquit on article 2, obstruction of congress. the subpoenas were invalid because the house didn't go through the court processes. because they didn't declare they were impeaching in advance, those subpoenas are invalid. your thoughts? >> number one, it's a ridiculous argument. it doesn't hold up when you look
7:26 am
at what the institution says, what the laws say. they don't require a prior vote for it to be valid. it doesn't invalidate the truth of the documents and the evidence which are real. so we have to go with what's real, and here it's definitely proved it happened. the subpoenas should have been obeyed. nixon was one of articles of impeachment was obstruction of congress for not obeying subpoenas. that's an impeachable defense. >> here is alan derrish wits on fox. >> the defense team tomorrow will show it's not true, that many of the issues that were presented were presented incompletely. there are three things the senate has to decide. one, is there sufficient evidence of what they claim. two, does it constitute, first of all, an abuse of power and third, does abuse of power constitute impeachable defenses.
7:27 am
conduct has to be criminal in nature. it can't be abuse of power, can't be obstruction of congress. those are precisely the arguments that the framers we jekted. >> that was actually on fox news, he said that's not true. a demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. do you grew with andrew napolitano or do you agree with dershowi dershowitz. >> i agreed with derrish wts in '98. i would point out even if he hadn't contradicted himself, ef rep other constitutional scholar has said it's an impeachable offense. in addition, there are two crimes, one of which the gao has said withholding the funds violated the empowerment act. that's crime one. number two, the federal election
7:28 am
said asking for anything of value from a foreign country is a violation of our election laws. at least two crimes there. >> let me bring my politicos into this. senator langford this morning. this is a trump defender on abc about the idea of having witnesses. take a listen. >> why not hear from the witnesses? >> the same reason they didn't want to hear from the witnesses, they made an initial push to say would you come. they said yes, if you'll subpoena us, if you go through the courts like a normal process. the house said no, we're not going to do that. >> let's go to marissa kumar, they're working themselves into a we don't need witnesses because -- is that smart for these republican senators? >> if you don't have anything to hide, you would call every single witness to make sure you're cleared. that's basic. if someone accuses you of stealing a piece of gum and you have allies to say it wasn't me,
7:29 am
you would bring everyone forward. that's basics for a 5-year-old. the vintages of giuliani, vintages of graham, vintages of dershowitz of the 1990s, i wish they would bring those back so they could honor the truth. the reason the president decided three of his star defense attorneys were going to be part of the dotted line of the fox media machine was to encourage spin. it was to obfuscate the truth of the american people. the reason they're going into the corner is for the first time a lot of fox viewers for the very first time were actually able to hear the material that is being presented why the president should be impeached. adam schiff did a fantastic job presenting that evidence. i think the trump defense attorneys and their team are incredibly concerned because they can't deny that the president did anything wrong. they're trying to obfuscate and trying to confuse people they
7:30 am
heard it directly from elected members of congress that it's country before party. they're going to have a really difficult time trying to spin that for folks hearing it for the first time. >> you spoke the name of giuliani on their favorite network with jeanine pirro. >> the president said in the past he didn't know who parnas was. you know both of them. can you shed light on any of this stuff? >> sure. i didn't know parnas at the time of that tape. that's before i met him. i wasn't at that dinner. i can tell you simply the president goes to dinner with about a thousand people -- >> corinne, is it that easy to get on the phone with the president of the united states and go to a private breakfast? >> it's not easy to. it's not easy to tweet as much as donald trump has done in the past couple days. the guy is clearly not commander-in-chief, not behaving like the president. spends too much time in the residence. that is now how a president
7:31 am
behaves. i want to echo what marie said, you've got to give it to the democrats. they did a masterful job in laying out the case, laying out the facts. there is such a mountain of evidence, and what they were able to do is bring it forth in a compelling way, in a way that's understandable. so that is what the republicans are dealing with. meanwhile, you have the republicans, the president's team basically laying in or repeating conspiracy theories that's ripped from sean hannity's monologues. they're doing it from the senate well. that is what they're presenting. look, joy, we have been at this for three months now, three whole months, and we have not heard one piece of facts from the republicans or the president, one piece -- not one witness from them, and because they do not have anything to undermine the facts that have been laid out, the case -- the
7:32 am
facts of the case. i think that is where we are. now they're living in this bubble and they're going to pay for it. i think republicans are going to pay for it when november comes around. >> have to go to the ballot box. quickly, what's your opinion, jill? >> the president is not a king. it's a crown and he doesn't deserve it and doesn't need it. we need to get back to democracy. >> there we go. thank you ladies, thank you very much. coming up, how lindsey graham's sick foency is playing in his own state. wn state when our daughter and her kids moved in with us... kids, bedtime! ...she was worried we wouldn't be able to keep up. course we can. what couldn't keep up was our bargain detergent. turns out it's mostly water, and water doesn't get out all the stains. so, we switched back to tide. one wash, stains are gone.
7:33 am
kind of like our quiet time. [slurping] what are you doing? don't pay for water. tide gives you three times the active cleaning ingredients. if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tide. tit's great actually, i've been listening to audible. it's audiobooks, news, meditations... gotta go! ♪ ♪ hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right.
7:34 am
looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results? try olay total effects. one dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects.
7:35 am
nyquifor your worst cold andrful relieflu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine.
7:36 am
coming up, we'll take a look at lindsey graham with a challenger giving him reason to be nervous about november. more "am joy" after the break. >> man: what's my safelite story? i spend a lot of time in my truck.
7:37 am
it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
7:38 am
7:39 am
7:40 am
then house manager lindsey graham who in president clinton's trial flatly rejected the notion that impeachment relates to violations of established law. here is what he said. >> what's a high crime? how about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? it's not very scholarly, but i think it's the truth. i think that's what they meant by high crimes. doesn't have to be a crime. it's just when you start using your office and acting in a way that hurts people you've committed a high crime. >> hashtag, ukraine is of low means. lindsey graham made a surprise appearance when house managers used his own words against him. graham wasn't in his seat when
7:41 am
the clip was played, but has seen it since. he stands by his old comment telling manu raju, i think it's fair game, i still believe it. graham still doesn't believe his golfing buddy and besty is anything. let me play a little more vincent lindsey graham. here he is in 1998 during the impeachment of bill clinton. >> i know what people want to do with this case. i know they want to get it over. i know many of them don't want the president to be impeached but i've got a duty far greater than just get together the next election. my problem is that i'm expecting the other side to engage the facts and they haven't. i'm just blown away by that. >> manu raju, a little more from his tweets about the two lindsey graham, '98 and currently.
7:42 am
asking lindsey graham about his dems used his 1999 clip. i think i've aged. i still believe it. i believe high crimes and misdemeanors can be anything people want it to be. do you understand these two lindsey grahams? >> no one understands these two lindsey grahams including lindsey graham. this is what i hear all over south carolina. people ask me each and every day what has happened to lindsey graham. it's just not democrats. it's republicans and independents as well. we are seeing in the polling results in south carolina this is having an impact on this guy. he's somebody that, even i thought was a statesman. in the end of the day it was about justice, about fairness, about following the rule of law. what we have seen for lindsey graham, this is all about washington politics, about him being relevant in the minds of people of washington, d.c., particularly one person in washington, d.c. at the white
7:43 am
house. what is sad is, he's forgotten about south carolina in the mix. >> let me play a couple more, just a couple more and we'll move on from that. here is lindsey graham. this is in 2016. lipid see graham talking about trump. >> i'm not going to try to get into the mind of donald trump because i don't think there's a whole lot of space there. i think he's a cook. i think he's crazy, unfit for office. >> what confirms me about the american press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of cook, not fit to be president. >> one more thing. here is lindsey graham talking about that he would not comply with subpoenas if he were trump. take a listen. >> if i were the president, i wouldn't cooperate with these guys at all. schiff, nadler and pelosi impeached this president in 48 days. i wouldn't give them the time of day. they're on a crusade to destroy
7:44 am
this man, and they don't care what they destroy in the process of trying to destroy donald trump. i do care. >> you know who is on a crusade to impeach bill clinton back in 1998, put that up. lindsey graham was on a crusade to impeach bill clinton for lying about a sexual affair and full nated fully about it. in south carolina is it more popular to be a trump sycophant than to be independent? >> this is what i'll give lindsey graham for that performance, a d minus. it's galling to see this guy and the fact he has no moral compass. he talks about being mr. rule of law in south carolina all the time, and what we have gotten, joy, time and time again is this guy likes playing washington politics. let me give you an idea in south carolina. lindsey has not had a town hall in almost three years in south carolina, but if you turn on
7:45 am
your tv, every other night he's on some cable news channel. >> on fox. >> on fox news. that's the sad thing. people are starting to understand there. there are problems in south carolina. rural hospitals are closing. 12 of our 46 counties there are no obgyns. a third of our state does not have access to wi-fi. i can go after issue after issue after issue, that things are falling apart in our state. we don't have a senator to spend the time in the state to find out because he has to get his free meal with the president. >> let's talk about how you can beat him if you become the nominee. here are lindsey graham's margins, in the last times he's run recently for re-election. in 2008, 57.6% of the vote versus a guy named bob conley. in 2014 a smaller race, a midterm year, he got only 54.5% versus brad hutto. these are overwhelming margins, but he still wins.
7:46 am
how would you beat him? >> that lindsey graham is different from today's lindsey graham. the coalition that came together, that lindsey graham used to get moderate democrats, independents and conservatives. this lindsey graham won't get any democrats. he won't get much of the independents. all he can rely on are conservatives who used to call him a rhino because they thought this is a guy we can't trust. they see time and time again. in this race, lindsey graham has never run against anybody like me. first of all, last quarter i raised $3.5 million. little round head boy from south carolina. lipid see graham, the bff of the president of the united states raised $3.9 million. we are neck and neck. we're down two points in the latest poll. we can beat lindsey graham and we're going to beat lindsey graham because we're building this grassroots movement in this state. go to, we c
7:47 am
send a message to everybody it's not about washington politics. all politics is local, you can't forget you're in that seat because of the people of south carolina, not because of donald trump or anybody else, but the people of south carolina. >> let me show you the poll you were talking about. a poll done for an organization called change research. the thing that's important about just looking at that number and seeing it is people, democrats tend to write off the south. they tend to right off south carolina as an unwinnable state, a red state. you say that's a mistake. >> it is a mistake. in 2008 barack obama lost south carolina by 150,000 votes. i want folks to know this. there are 400,000 unregistered black voters in south carolina right now, 400,000. >> do you have a brian kemp that can prevent democrats from registering? the way it worked in georgia was
7:48 am
that ryan kemp controlled the mechanisms of who could register, as people were registering he was throwing them off. that's how he won. >> south carolina is different than florida and south carolina, we don't have a secretary of state that oversees our elections. we have an election commission, which is a non-partisan group. when i was chair, i worked with them quite often. this year we will now have election machines in south carolina that have a paper ballot. do they have that in georgia and north carolina? probably not. what i'm telling folks is, you want to invest here. this is a place where it doesn't take a lot to invest on radio and tv and the voters are there. we've just got to give them a reason. >> there's a larger percentage of black voters. but democrats throw money -- >> and north carolina. >> and north carolina. >> before i let you go, is anyone doing that? anyone trying to register, other than your campaign obviously. >> we're trying to do it in the state party. that's something we need.
7:49 am
center for voter participation is a group out there in south carolina, the south carolina progressive network is doing some things with their missing voter project. that's what we really need, to get these folks registered to vote and we will give them a reason to come out. >> you used to be house whip for congressman jim clyburn. you know a lot about democratic politician. do you like anybody in terms of these people for president and is anybody doing particularly well in south carolina? >> i'm still an officer of the dnc so i can't support and endorse anybody. there's some that are doing well. biden is doing good stuff there, warren and sanders. but something that is on my radar now, even tom steyer. he is in some of these black communities, buying a black newspaper on tv and all. i think it's wide open. people need to engage. that's what we're doing. >> jaime harrison, good luck.
7:50 am
don't write off the south democrats. that's an important message. >> exactly right. >> thanks. more "am joy" after the break. . more "am joy" after the break. and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at
7:51 am
doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere.
7:52 am
prevagen. healthier brain. better life. when the murray's head to work... ...their dog michelangelo gets to work, too. today's job? own. the. bed. stink-eee. good thing they use new gain ultraflings with two times the oxi boost and febreze, for ultra-big, ultra-stinky loads. fresh again. gain. seriously good scent. and if you love gain flings, you've gotta try the dish soap. which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70.
7:53 am
click, call or visit a store today. believe me. what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process. >> president trump's complete and total obstruction makes richard nixon look like a choir boy. >> let's remember how we all got
7:54 am
here. they made false allegations about a telephone call. >> i'll tell you why we're here. because the president used the power of his office to coerce an ally at war. >> welcome back to "am joy." one of the more disturbing elements of the impeachment trial, despite the unprecedented lack of witnesses and the smearing of the biden is that despite an overwhelming amount of evidence of trump's guilt, the two parties cannot agree on a basic stipulation of facts. two people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can watch the exact same trial. but depending on where they get their news, they will walk away with two radically different opinions on what they saw. take, for example, house impeachment manager adam schiff's closing statement on thursday. >> colonel vindman said hear right matters.
7:55 am
if right doesn't matter, we're lost. if the truth doesn't matter, we're lost. the framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth don't matter. but here, right is supposed to matter. it's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. >> his remarks were met with so much praise from democratic-leaning social medites that the phrase "right matters" was actually trending number one on twitter. "the daily beast" said it will go down in history. perhaps so powerful it would've possibly even had the power to sway the minds of trump voters. but unfortunately most of them probably never saw it. because as media matters reports, during thursday's prime time hours fox news played just 22 seconds of the trial live.
7:56 am
what did they play instead? yet more rehashing of the 2016 election, because this is fox news and that's what they do. they also threw in a smattering of gloating for good measure. >> welcome to "hannity." we begin tonight a fox news alert. we begin with major breaking news. we were right yet again. look at this. in a letter to the fisa court, the department of justice admitted that at least two of their applications against trump campaign associate carter page lacked probable cause and that its surveillance of page should not have continued. >> we americans live in two vastly different worlds. but just by two separate and completely opposite streams of information, one fact-based and one based purely on ideology. thanks for that, rupert murdock.
7:57 am
that was remarkable. but i want to play before we get into the fox news of it, i want to play senator john kennedy. this is the louisiana kennedy. talking about his experience of having had to sit there in that senate room that, senate chamber, and actually listen to the case against trump for the first time really. and here he is. >> if you poll the senators, nine out of ten will tell you they have not read the transcript of the house hearings and the 10th is lying to you. so they're hearing the prosecution's case for the first time. >> i think for a lot of people who know that senators are paid quite a bit good of money, more than the average american earns, to do a very simple job in which their staff does most of the actual work, the fact that he's never heard the senate case against trump, probably because he's also getting his news mostly from fox news. he's, like, wow, i'm hearing this information for the first
7:58 am
time. that would sound remarkable and crazy except that justin amash said based on my experience with republican colleagues in the house, i suspect that many senate republicans are hearing the facts of the case for the first time. jack, why shouldn't republican voters have the opportunity to themselves hear this case for the first time the same thing that the senator was allowed to do? why shouldn't they get to hear it? >> well, i think they've had that opportunity over the last three months in which the house did have the hearings. some of them were actually public, not all the ones that adam schiff and jerry nadler did not want to be public. but think about this also that when we're talking about not being in your chair listening to the other debate, where are elizabeth warren or bernie sanders or senator bennet or klobuchar? they're not listening to this. in fact, they're not even showing up to work right now. i'm not trying to broaden into a bigger discussion -- >> hold on a second, jack. they were sitting and listening
7:59 am
to the entire hearing. the hearing was ended because republicans only did two hours. then they wrapped the hearing for the day. that's why those senators are not sitting and listening to it because there's nothing happening right now. hold on. the senate is closed for business right now. >> yes -- >> while those hearings were happening they were sitting and listening to it. the reason they are not sitting in the senate right now is because the senate is closed for business. that's why they're back campaigning on the campaign trail. so don't mislead the audience saying things like that. >> what i understand what senator kennedy was saying is that he had not been paying attention to the house hearings. >> that's his job. >> he had been paying attention to the senate hearings. and if you think about it from a senator's standpoint we heard adam schiff for two years say he had irrefutable evidence that there was collusion with russia. he looked in the cameras. he told us that over and over again. and then he said quid pro quo over and over again. and when a focus group said that argument's not going to work, they switched to bribery.
8:00 am
and then when there was finally articles of impeachment, none of the above was mentioned at all -- or it was mentioned i could not tell wasn't particle of the article. so i don't blame senator kennedy for not following the house because he knows it's all politics. >> do you know -- finish your sentence. >> he's going to listen in to the senate and for the first time the president will be able to give a defense. unlike in the clinton impeachment, president trump was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the house. >> now -- okay. so here's the difference between the way we do business over here on msnbc and the way that they might do business in other places you appear. you just can't say things that aren't true and just say that -- >> well, that is the truth. >> wait a second. you just actually can't do that. you know who said there was a quid pro quo? donald trump's own ambassador to the european union who was the guy involved, one of the three amigos. he himself said, yeah, it was a quid pro quo. that was said in the house
8:01 am
hearings. maybe the senators who were getting paid $174,000 a year to do a very simple job should listen to it. let's let medi hassan -- >> if there was one that's what adam schiff and jerry nadlerner should've built their case on. they did not. they flirted with it -- >> bill clinton having sexual relations with an intern wasn't in the articles against him, but lindsey graham was happy to impeach him for that. let's let medi hassan in. >> it wasn't just lindsey graham, joy. i believe jack voted for every article of impeachment against bill clinton back then. but disappointing -- you know that's not true that in the house the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses or send the lawyer. this is what jay sekulow and pat cipollone -- hold on, let me finish my point, and then you can happily respond, then i'll wait for your answer. the lawyers for trump turned up this week, joy, in the senate, and opened with these falsehoods.
8:02 am
that shows how weak their defense is that they opened. they didn't even wait a few hours. they opened with these falsehoods. they said, for example, pat cipollone that they were locked out of the proceedings. they said that nobody from the republican house was allowed to attend the skiff depositions, the secure room depositions. they made one after another falsehood about the process. and jack's just repeated it. cipollone wrote a letter to congress saying we don't want to be part of this. when jerry nadler invited them to be part of the judiciary hearings, cipollone said no in a two-paragraph letter. he rejected that. >> let me -- >> no. hold on. let him finish. >> i'm nearly finished, jack. can you tell me, jack, how many members of the republican house attended those hearings in those secret basement rooms? how many were in total to attend? >> yes -- >> how many. you wanted to speak. how many republicans? >> hold on, hold on.
8:03 am
>> 48 republican members of the house were entitled to attend the depositions -- >> jack. okay. hold on a second. here are the rules of this engagement. jack, you cannot talk when mehdi is talking. you're going to get to respond to -- >> he asked me a question. >> but you started answering it before he got to the period. when you get to the period, that's the end of the sentence, and then you can respond. >> okay. i'm on board, mehdi. ask me again, then yield the time. >> okay. so here you go. pat cipollone said they were locked out of the proceedings and no republican member of the house was allowed to attend those depositions. that is a lie, is it not, given 48 republicans were entitled to attend. he lied, didn't he? >> he did not lie. this is what he was referring to. as you know that in the skiff in the bottom of the basement of the capitol adam schiff held hearings in which the president was not allowed to attend or have counsel present or cross-examine the witnesses. now that is the truth, isn't it?
8:04 am
>> no. [ laughter ] jack, just to be clear to your viewers -- >> hold on, jack, jack, jack -- >> cipollini said, and i quote, the republican members of the house were not allowed to enter the room. that is false, jack. can we agree on that, that is false? >> mehdi, we will kind of do a statement swap. i will listen to that. it could be true -- >> it is true. [ laughter ] >> okay. wait a minute. joy, you will also agree with me that the president was not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses. >> hold on one second. >> let me ask you a question, jack. have you ever sat on a grand jury? >> actually, no. >> okay. >> i keep getting struck from it because of my congressional -- >> gotcha. i have sat in on a grand jury. and those skiff hearings were the equivalent of grand jury hearings. i will tell you that whoever the
8:05 am
defendant or the potential defendant is, is not allowed to have counsel or cross-examine witnesses. the skiff behaves as a grand jury room. no grand jury ever allows the potential defendant to cross-examine witnesses or have counsel in. the republicans decided that they were going to use that as an excuse to claim donald trump get due process. however, now donald trump has the opportunity to have evidence and witnesses entered into evidence. he will have the opportunity to have his counsel cross-examine witnesses. do you then agree that now that we're in the point of a trial, that was the grand jury portion of these proceedings. -- wait a minute. this is now the trial. so given that you think it's very important for the president to cross-examine witnesses, do you then agree that there should be witnesses called for the president's counsel to cross-examine? >> i think if we're going to sit with the clinton and the nixon impeachment where the presidents were allowed to have counsel and
8:06 am
cross-examine witnesses in the house, then that's what -- >> i mean in the senate. >> i know. >> you're not answering my question. >> joy -- >> okay. >> i'm trying to get there. i promise you. i will get there. but nixon and clinton were both allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the house. schiff and nadler denied trump that ability. now -- >> that is false. you must stop saying things that are false. >> hold on a second. wait, pause, pause, pause. let me let mehdi back in because if what you've just said is false and i want to ask my producers also, round that up. >> i will tell you -- >> hold on. >> this is all about the skiff -- >> jack, we are no longer in the house hearings. the grand jury portion is over. donald trump has been indicted. that's what impeachment is. >> right. >> joy, can i just jump in quickly? >> i'm going to let mehdi answer
8:07 am
the question if he has the information. >> he is referring to the house intelligence committee hearings. that's not what trump's lawyers referred to. and you've made a valid counterpoint about grand jury. jay sekulow on the opening day referred to the house judiciary committee, jerrold nadler's committee which met in public with those law professors who invited the president to be part of that, to be there, to listen to witnesses, to offer interventions. jay sekulow referred to the house judiciary committee and said the president was not allowed to be there. that is a falsehood. again, i can ask jack. jack, can we agree that is false? >> let's see if my producers have that sound byte. do you have that sound byte, guys? okay. let's play it. >> in every other impeachment proceeding, the president has been given a minimal -- minimal due process. nothing here. not even mr. schiff's republican
8:08 am
colleagues were allowed into the skiff. >> okay. that was the one about the republican colleagues not allowed in the skiff. that's actually not true. 48 of them were in there. >> now that you've seen that clip, jack, do you agree it's true that that's a lie? you just watched the clip. >> mehdi, do you agree that i'm right and you're wrong? that's the question. >> no, no, no, pat cipollini said -- i've asked you one question since the beginning of this discussion. >> yeah, it's too bad you're not the interviewer. you would enjoy that, but you're not the interviewer. >> you haven't answered my question though yet. did pat cipollini lie on tape? >> okay. stop here, stop here because, jack, you're obviously not willing to answer the question that mehdi asked you. let's talk about witnesses in this current trial because, again, we are out of the grand jury. that's what impeachment is. it's a grand jury die.
8:09 am
he has now been indicted. trump is impeached. last saturday talking about the witnesses that she'd like to see. take a listen. >> we very well may call him as a witness if we ultimately have witnesses. so don't dis-count that yet. >> does it make any sense at all, jack, to call adam schiff as a witness? why would they do that? >> well, i think they should if they're going to have witnesses. and the reason is, is that adam schiff does have a credibility issue, as i had mentioned earlier. he spent two years telling us that he had seen the evidence that russia colluded with the trump campaign. and of course 2,800 subpoenas and 500 witnesses later, mr. mueller said -- >> no, don't lie about the mueller report here, not today, sir. i read the mueller report. i'm pretty sure mehdi did too.
8:10 am
do not make up things about the mueller report. don't try that because i read the mueller report so it's not going to work here. go back to the question, why should adam schiff be a witness? >> okay. he said he had no coordination with the whistle-blower, did not know him at all, and now there appears to be evidence that they were, in fact, coordinating with the whistle-blower. that is a relative -- >> what evidence? >> that there is discussion of it and there's interviews with him. >> what evidence? no. be specific. >> joy. -- >> you don't have any. >> good question. if we get him as a witness, we can discuss that. >> mehdi, your thoughts? >> i don't know why y'all would be afraid to have adam schiff as a witness. what is the problem? >> he's not relevant. >> you're not answering mine, i'm not answering yours. i'm not afraid to have adam schiff as a witness. i think the democrats should agree to hunter biden, they should agree to joe biden, they
8:11 am
should agree to adam schiff, they should agree to jerrold nadler's uber driver. because, you know what? donald trump's still not going to agree to allow mick mulvaney and john bolton to testify in return. call the bluff. jack knows there's never been an impeachment trial in the history of the senate in this country where there haven't been witnesses. he mentioned the bill clinton trial he voted to impeach bill clinton. bill clinton said at trial monica lewinsky, blumenthal, and yet you have this weird world of republicans now. you have to admire how the gop and the senate and the trump administration has taken gaslighting to a whole new level where they tell us you can't have witnesses or evidence, prevent droumt documents at the senate trial. then they say this is boring, we've seen nothing new here, we've got no new evidence. they want to have their cake and eat it. it's astonishing.
8:12 am
>> i'm going to let you respond, but my producer just forwarded me a politifact. they have now certified that every single past impeachment trial has included witnesses. so that is the fact. every single impeachment trial -- and we're talking judges impeached as well as presidents, have all had witnesses. so would you take that deal, jack? all of the witnesses that the democrats -- that the republicans want, whether they seem relevant or irrelevant in exchange for parnas, in exchange for secretary pompeo, in exchange for mick mulvaney, in exchange for john bolton, i'm just saying would you take that deal if you all can fulfill donald trump's dreams that he wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens by letting the senators finish the job? if you guys get that opportunity, would you take those witnesses? would you accept that? >> i think i would under the circumstance that we go ahead and accelerate this and get it over with. as you know, this is a political exercise. there is not enough facts to
8:13 am
impeach the president. >> well, obviously there are because he's impeached. >> they failed miserably. not only bipartisan votes were the ones against moving forward. >> that's irrelevant. >> 71 times. >> i want to say to mehdi -- >> hold on, hold on. >> i do want to get back. >> please. >> remember, clinton and nixon had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in the house, which they did do. >> i'm going to end on this. >> only three witnesses that the clinton senate that had already been -- >> didn't block witnesses from going to the house. >> hold on. >> do you agree that the trump -- >> noise pollution. this is noise pollution. one moment. i want to put up one more thing. put it up really quick again. thank you very much. that's my e.p. we call him homie. donald trump will not participate in impeachment hearing. the white house says that is bbc
8:14 am
news reporting in many other outlets reported that the white house refused to participate in any way in the hearings. so donald trump was not denied the opportunity to participate. he refused. he and the white house refused to participate, denied allowing any of his own people to testify, told him they may not testify, told john bolton you may not testify. >> and he refuses now. he is still not allowing mick mulvaney and john bolton. so will jack call today on -- >> yes, let's all agree. all of us agree. >> whoa, whoa, whoa. >> mehdi, i don't want more evidence. i'm convinced this thing is a political sham. >> you said two minutes ago there's not enough evidence. >> the reason you want more evidence is because the house did not prove their case. >> -- enough evidence -- >> okay. we're going to end it here because i can't hear anybody because everybody's talking at the same time. jack, i'm going to end it here. it's complete apockcy to say
8:15 am
that donald trump did not have the opportunity to present evidence, and then he did not want to. you just said you want to interrogate adam schiff so you should accept the idea of having witnesses. that would actually be consistent. just saying. >> if it was an irrefutable case. >> sir, he was already impeached. there obviously was enough because he was impeached. medhi hasan, we really appreciate you taking the time. next a former trump campaign adviser and former contestant on "the apprentice" tells us what they think trump is thinking. it's tough to quit smoking cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
8:16 am
stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. the most common 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
8:17 am
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. or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else.
8:18 am
save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.
8:19 am
all i can do -- tell you is that from the president's point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind. if he thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it. >> donald trump's insisted that he did nothing wrong, in mismind in, trying to strongarm ukraine might be what's taking him over the edge right about now. because according to reporting from "vanity fair" trump has been fuming, particularly for not saying his call with the president of ukraine was absolutely perfect. he apparently wants to hear those specific words come out of their mouths. but that's not all. trump is also reportedly anger with his son-in-law jared
8:20 am
kushner for making the cover of "time magazine." precisely because apparently no one is to make "the time" cover, but our needy praise-starved commander in chief. i guess we should ask you first, can you get trump on the cover? because apparently he needs it. >> refer the fake cover that he had. >> so what do you guys think is going on? what do you think is happening? because there's been reporting out of the white house, sort of official word out of the white house is that trump is very happy with the defense, they are happy with the fact that they were measured which seems weird for trump. but they're glad they came out and didn't do a screamy me-me thing. but gabriel sherman is saying the opposite. >> i think you unpack this and say we're in what i call a menace to society trial. you had the detective and you had old dog. what he said to him was you know
8:21 am
you done messed up. so what were the beads of sweat that were coming down his head? and one of the biggest tells is this incessant lying that creates an alternative universe in what i call kind of a never-neverland. i mean that specifically that never am i to be wrong, never am i to be questioned, and never am i treated fairly. so he creates this never, neverland and tries to draw other people into it. and from there you see things like this week past where in the iran attack where he said that people weren't injured and 34 troops are injured with -- >> and he said it wasn't that bad. >> for someone who didn't serve at all. so, i mean, you get things like that that happen that bring people into this never-neverland. but at the same time you look at the kushner cover, another tell that says only i can be in the spotlight, only i can be someone who's able to get the attention and adulation from others. so those tells come over and over again. he is mad at greta thunberg for getting on there.
8:22 am
he wants to be person of the year. so this is something he's desperate. >> anybody that works for the president if you're on that "time" cover, although i don't think this would happen to jared. i said, steve, if i were you, i'd go into the oval and laugh with him and tell him. he hates publicity for anybody that works for him and he hates the one if you're the one speaking for him. that's the one i told you, i would always say these are suggestions, let me help you sell yourself to this audience. it was the best way to go about truly. >> let's talk about this in his mind because it was a strange thing, like, the murder suspect in his mind thought it was a good thing to kill a person. it is a weird defense. trump has been in a particularly foul mood as impeachment drags on. trump recently told some republicans that he decided to say f-it and kill general qassem soleimani. trump's mood has the west wing
8:23 am
bracing for a new round of staff turmoil. there's a sense that what he really needs is for the republicans to get up there and use the words "it was a perfect call." he needs that specific thing to happen. >> and that perfection is someone who's created their own reality. so everything i do in my reality has to be perfect. if you don't use those words, you're not once again stepping into this never-neverland with him that allows him to continue to tell the nation the same narrative. you look at what he's thinking about contemplating doing from that article that essentially, hey, we're going to bring in chris kristi to replace mick mulvaney to actually reign in jared kushner. that shine for other people really is intimidating for him. and that is creating possible turnover in the white house just because of that "time." >> let's talk about the comportment of donald trump. yesterday we had steve cortes who is a member of the superpac for donald trump's re-election. he said the way that donald trump talks about people, this
8:24 am
lyin'cheatin'shifty schiff. and now we have this. he says this is great, this is exactly the way the president should speak. but he was also offended that never-trump republicans who trump has called human scum, would speak poorly of trump's base. so that only trump's base must be respected. but trump can belittle fellow americans. he can belittle the whole city of baltimore and call it vermin-infested. he can belittle any city that voted against him. he can belittle people and try to sort of destroy them verbally or in tweets but that he and his supporters must be elevated. that is a trump thing. >> it's certainly something hard to defend. of course there is always the double standard and there is the double standard when you work for him as well where some people can get away with this, he can get away with certain things, others can't and he'll say a lot of things about people that in fact he's done. i would tell you from a political point of view it's a good tactic.
8:25 am
but i think that going back to this idea i think somebody, and disclaimer i worked for him. so look at his team. you have pat cipollone, jack sekulow, two lead attorneys. pat is the white house attorney. one, i think the president likes to have him there because he doesn't have to pay for him. but let's also say he was involved in holding the money from ukraine. and then you have somebody like jay sekulow, and disclaimer, who i worked for him. but he's the perfect person to have because he's a media guy himself. and he's arguing in front of the supreme court. and what i think he said is very important, and of course the president must've been furious. thank god he was in davos if you worked for him, he wasn't able to watch minute by minute. but what i think he said was perfect was we will do an affirmative defense. by saying that, he said we will bring in facts that weren't there. and i think that's the only way that they can get senator who's really have a foul taste in their mouth about this to say it wasn't perfect -- >> but it gives them a way out.
8:26 am
this morning he is tweeting some sort of weird language at adam schiff saying he's going to pay a price. will that scare, in your view, and i'll ask both of you this question. will it scare enough republicans that even four of them won't vote for witnesses? >> no. i don't think so. you look at susan collins, you look at mitt romney. and i think they're staying somewhat strong right now. i think that essentially they are in their buckets and i don't think that's going to scare them kind of off the wall. >> the reality is that donald trump, you've said this many times. we have talked about this a lot. it's not like trump is going to go to the mat for any of these senators. he's not loyal to them. he just wants them to be loyal to him. at the end of the day if you were advising a, you know, cory gardner, would you say it's smarter to just stay with trump and go down with him if he's going down, just go down and take your legacy down with him, or to show some independence and try to win some independence in the state of colorado? >> well, i think that somebody like susan collins or cory
8:27 am
gardner, they don't have any choice from a spriktly political point of view. as you talk about it their legacy. well, then i would say you are thinking about it as if they care about how they actually govern. and, frankly, i don't think either side, they make political decisions. you have no choice if you're running for re-election right now to not vote for witnesses. if you do i think it's a recipe to lose, particularly in maine where the president, as you know, won a delegate last time. that'll be the only way that susan collins can get re-elected and also keep the donor money that i think she's going to get from the kavanaugh vote. >> but think about the monument test. in our history we don't have monuments to george wallace. we don't have monuments to joe mccarthy, who have taken that moment to be courageous and profiles encouraged and step back from that. we give monuments to people who step forward. so as soon as susan collins and cory gardner are thinking about
8:28 am
their legacy, this is an opportunity to have a monument test. >> sam nunberg and kwame jackson, thank you. coming up, more "am joy." ore "a. whether your beauty routine is 3 steps... or 57, make nature's bounty hair skin and nails step one. it's the number one brand uniquely formulated for silky hair, glowing skin and healthy nails. nature's bounty, because you're better off healthy. thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer,
8:29 am
as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.
8:30 am
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 kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪
8:31 am
8:32 am
even while donald trump's impeachment trial is underway, his administration is still hard at work on his extreme agenda. the latest target, pregnant women. the trump administration announced on thursday it will deny tourist visas to travellers whom they suspect are headed to the u.s. for the sole purpose of giving birth. the state department claims it's targeting the practice of birth tourism because it imposes a risk to national security. but critics say this is really all about one of donald trump's personal pet peeves, the constitutional provision granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the u.s. and by the way the rule will not apply to visitors from 39, mainly, european and asian countries enrolled in the visa waiver program. not to mention all of that birth tourism from russia to florida, trump's favorite state. the trump administration is also looking to expand its travel ban for certain countries as early as tomorrow. it's reportedly considering new restrictions for the above
8:33 am
countries which would join the mostly muslim countries on the list. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away
8:34 am
if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. ♪[ siren ] & doug potato pay them to. give me your hand! i can save you...
8:35 am
lots of money with liberty mutual! we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
8:36 am
every time that we would bring up the witnesses, the fact that there was no first-hand witness stands that actually said the president did anything wrong, just read the transcript. there is nothing wrong here. >> i'm not going to vote to approve witnesses because the house democrats have had lots of
8:37 am
witnesses. given the house democrats' presentation, there are now real questions about joe biden and hunter biden's conduct. >> but you would need to vote to approve witnesses to hear from the bidens -- >> i'd like to hear what adam schiff has to say about those facts that he, again, glossed over. >> it is the head-scratching case the president and his defenders continue to make. there's not enough evidence for impeachment. there are no first-hand witnesses and there are real questions after the house impeachment managers gave their opening arguments. except senators already had and still have the opportunity to hear evidence. they had an opportunity to hear testimony from those witnesses. but in a party line vote, republicans killed every democratic amendment to do so. and when asked if they will vote in favor of hearing that evidence or having those witnesses, some of those same republicans say, nope, they will vote against that too. joining me is the writer-at-large at "esquire." charlie, you were in those
8:38 am
gaggles talking to these senators. how did they try to make sense of it just being confronted as they walk out of the hearings, sitting in a trial and saying, nope we don't need any witnesses unless we can beat adam schiff and the whistle-blower and biden? >> the republicans are all fish-flopping around in the bottom of the boat basically. they have the votes. they know they have the votes. they are just hanging on and they don't necessarily have to make a lot of sense. i think that the epic moment in regards to that was the other night after adam schiff's presentation when they all pretended to be offended by the fact that he quoted the cbs for a report about heads on pikes. james langford of oklahoma practically bowled people over getting the microphone to explain how he wasn't afraid. they're all terrified by the way. sharrod brown said that the other night and he's absolutely right. i think he made a good comparison. he compared it to the mood in the chamber when they were voting on the iraq war. and all the democrats were afraid to vote against it. and guess what, all the people
8:39 am
who voted for the war and ran for president, they all lost. >> yeah. very much so. let's play senator mike braun of indiana this morning on "meet the press" this is about the next election and whether or not donald trump will be constrained from trying to get foreign help to win again, like he accepted last time. he's mike brawn talking about that. >> this president, as you know, he is going to take acquittal and think i can keep doing this. >> hopefully it'll be instructive to where -- >> you say hopefully. what's the evidence in his lifetime that he takes any sort of whatever it is, a misdemeanor ticket or whatever and then he accepts that and says i will change my behavior? >> i think he will put two and two together. >> does that seem incredible to you, kimberly? >> no. for a number of reasons. remember that the so-called perfect call, as the president describes it, took place one day
8:40 am
after robert mueller testified before congress and essentially brought to an end the mueller investigation. so if that didn't stop the president from engaging in this type of behavior, which was the same type that was the subject of the mueller investigation, certainly this wouldn't. it belies the fact that republicans could be making an argument that even though this was awful, terrible, behavior by the president, he should not have enlisted foreign help in an election, that perhaps it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. they can't even do that because of the white house to the previous point about being afraid. the white house has shot down any sort of acceptance of that kind of defense. they can only say that the call was perfect, that nothing was wrong, and that the democrats are essentially making up. the brief for the president's attorney says that the democrats are making up the charge of abuse of power. like that didn't exist before.
8:41 am
they made it up. so this is what republicans are forced to come forward and defend. but so far they have stuck together and are doing that very thing. >> and the thing that's so crazy is the people who are arguing there is no such thing as abuse of power is because -- but they think it doesn't exist anymore. let's look at this tweet this morning. we talked about it several times but this is the last time we are going to show it on the audience. i'm not going to read it, but donald trump using weird expletives about adam schiff and saying he hasn't paid the price, sort of mafioso language. here's adam schiff responding on "meet the press." >> i made the argument that it's going to require moral courage to stand up to this president. and this is a raffle and vindicative president.
8:42 am
he said i should pay a price. >> do you take that as a threat? >> i think it's intended to be. >> and the republicans i have talked to said that this is a vindicative man that revenge drives him. we talk about recidivism. if you have a client that is acquitted but it of the mind to go back and do it again, trump feels like that kind of a client. >> he's what we call a repeat offender. and if you even go back before he became president and you look at his professional life with how he managed his businesses, with how he managed any one of his professional endeavors, trump university, the charity, every single one of those things had some element of fraud. we've had, you know, the attorney general. everybody has stepped in to kind of try to reign him in. and yet the behavior continues each and every chance he gets, every single opportunity he gets. it's the same exact type of behavior where he skirts the
8:43 am
rules. he doesn't follow, you know, protocol and procedure. and those kinds of things don't seem to matter to him. and you can tell by the way in which he conducts himself as president. the separation of powers does not matter to him. he does not seem to even acknowledge and want to acknowledge, you know, congress's oversight powers in respect to them asking for documents and witnesses. this is someone who thumbs his nose at authority. this is someone who doesn't believe he should ever be accountable. we saw that before he became president. i keep saying that because back in 2015 and 2016 when a whole bunch of us were like this guy is not the guy to be president, people thought we were crazy. they said there would be grown ups in the room. they said there would be guardrails. they said that congress would check him. but we know now that congress is unable to check him, at least the republicans are in the senate. >> and the problem here is that the recidivism would mean, again, having foreign interference to help him get elected again. >> but the mueller report outlined that he helped in some
8:44 am
ways with russian interference. >> well, he at least accepted it. he happily accepted it. the national review editorial board has been all over the board. they have now come out with an editorial saying impeachment does not require. they are making arguments that range from the implausible to the embarrassing. that presidents cannot be impeached for any abuse of power unless that abuse took the form of a criminal violation of a statute. jonathan turley has repudiated this view, attorney general william barr said that debates are clear that congress was to be able to remove a president from office if he had exercised his legal powers in an abusive way. do you agree with that? >> i do. absolutely. it's abundantly clear that we ought to be able to remove a president who abused his power. what would be the purpose of the impeachment clause if we couldn't do this? >> and kimberly atkins happens to be a lawyer too.
8:45 am
do you agree with that? >> i do. the framers specifically made it not contingent upon a statutory crime. that was the purpose of it, and that's the way that it should be interpreted. >> charlie, very quickly before we go, isn't the concern here that trump will do it again and that means our next election is just actually not safe? >> well, even if he doesn't do it again, and i think he will, the seed has been planted to doubt the result of the next election one way or the other. >> absolutely. >> and you know that if he loses, he'll jump all over it. yeah, absolutely. charlie, kimberly, and win. these people are going to tell us who won the week. us who won the week. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb;
8:46 am
don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started.
8:47 am
because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ncan it one up spaghetti night? cleaning power of liquid. it sure can.
8:48 am
really? can it one up breakfast in bed? yeah, for sure. thanks, boys. what about that? uhh, yep! it can? yeah, even that! i would very much like to see that. me too. introducing new tide power pods. one up the toughest stains with 50% more cleaning power than liquid detergent. any further questions? uh uh! nope! one up the power of liquid with new tide power pods. quitting smoking is freaking, 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
8:49 am
you know what time it is. now it's time to ask my panel "who won the week?" back with me charlie, kimberly, and midwin. i believe adam schiff won the week. extraordinary, extraordinary work this week in front of the senate presenting the case of why donald trump should be removed. i think he did an amazing and masterful job of laying out exactly what the facts are, exactly what they mean. and basically, you know, when
8:50 am
you're doing an opening statement for a trial, it is a road map for the jury to understand where we're going and what it is that you intend to prove. and i also think he did a very good job of letting america know why witnesses are important. in other words, he illustrated the illustrated the gaps of information that were missing. and basically telling the senators, don't you want to know more, isn't it your duty, your job, the oath everybody swore to when they started, to want to know more in this case? particularly since this is a huge deal, this is a big decision you're going to have to make. adam schiff was very good in pointing out the facts, in respecting the process, and he did a very good job of laying the record, because the record matters going forward for generations to come of what this president did and that he and many other democrats stood up to say, we can't have this. >> i think the house managers were brilliant. >> they were all brilliant. >> they were all really good but i have to say the closing of his opening, that's going into the history books. you took my answer.
8:51 am
kimberly atkins, this is going to be cuff now, that was the answer i was probably give but midwin took it. who won the week? >> npr's mary louise kelly, a master class in how to interview a public official with her interview of secretary of state mike pompeo. she remained professional. she brought receipts during that interview and she remained calm and collected not only in the face of his growing hostility, if you listen to the interview itself, but what she says she endured afterward, being called back, yelled at and sworn at by the secretary of state and having him bring out a map in an attempt to embarrass her, believing she couldn't pick out ukraine, she of course has a masters in european studies so i have no doubt she was able to
8:52 am
pick it out. reporters can learn a lot about how to conduct an interview, even in the face of a lot of hostility coming from a public official. >> there was a local news reporter who did a similar thing and that showed you that mike pence -- mike pompeo is a bristly type of person, and these female reporters have been tough and he's not able to handle it. i wonder if he would have told a male reporter, i'm going to show you this map and show me ukraine on the map. i wonder if he or his boss can find ukraine on the map. that's just my opinion. charlie pierce, who won the week? that was a great answer, by the way. >> it cannot have escaped anyone that we're in the middle of founder-palooza. there are more old white guys cited at this thing than the pga senior leadership. we have a lot of ben franklin, a
8:53 am
lot of tom payne. the reverend samuel stillman, pastor of the church in boston during the american revolution and the constitutional convention, who jerry nadler name checked, i give jerry nadler's staff a lot of credit for disinterring this guy because he's one of the unfound founders. and the quote he used was, without the prospect of impeachment, who will -- i'm paraphrasing now because i can't read my own handwriting, but basically, without impeachment, anybody will dare anything. it was a reminder -- i'll tell you, there was a kind of melon kcolonel -- melancholy in the chamber the whole time because all these citations from history, at flawed as most of those people were, as edward r. murrow said in his broadcast against joe mccarthy, we are not
8:54 am
descent descended from fearful people. this is a measuring stick for how far away from the founding fathers we've got to be. >> let me also name check frederick douglass. >> i didn't want to mention him because he's still doing such great work. >> he said we need to fix our country's system so we can survive a bad president. i'm going to go to somebody that's a little more local. my ep gave me this person, i didn't know about this story. maya moore, the wnba star, basically the lebron james equivalent of the wnba, two-time mvp. she will sit out a second straight season despite her continued success so she can continue to push for criminal justice reform and for the release of a guy named jonathan irons who she believes to be innocent of the crime he was incarcerated for. he's 39 years old. she met him in 2007 during a
8:55 am
visit to the jefferson correctional facility in jefferson. he was born into severe poverty, just 16 when the incident occurred in a st. louis suburb. the homeowner named him but there is no corroboration, no dna, no footprints, no blood evidence, anything. this young woman decided she's going to sit out basketball to try to get him out. that is the meaning of trying to put your money where your mouth is and really believe in criminal justice, good for her, she won the week. you guys always win the week as well, thank you very much. before we go, a heartfelt goodbye. this is going to make me sad. one of our fantastic amazing producers, natalie johnson, you will always be a part of our "a.m. joy" family, look, we're embarrassing you on tv. we wish you the best in your next interfeendeavor, we will m, and we'll bring you bread every so often. she loves bread. more "a.m. joy" after the break. excuse me a minute...
8:56 am
hi dad. no. don't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. when a nasty cold won't let you sleep, try nyquil severe with vicks vapocool whoa! and vaporize it.
8:57 am
ahhhhh! shhhhh! nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business. frustrated that clean clothes you want to wear always seem to need an iron? next time try bounce wrinkle guard dryer sheets. just toss it in the dryer to bounce out wrinkles. we dried these shorts with bounce wrinkle guard, and a pair without. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet
8:58 am
that does the job of three dryer sheets. it also comes in unscented. if you don't love bounce wrinkle guard, we'll give you your money back. oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.
8:59 am
that is our show for today. thanks so much for watching "a.m. joy." my friend alex witt has the latest. >> as much as i lament when we have wonderful staffers leaving, i'll say, if you ever go, i'll lose it. >> if you go, i'll go. >> you have a big show, senator ben cardin, talking impeachment. >> he may have just heard you announce his arrival.
9:00 am
thank you so much, my friend, have a good weekend. high noon in the east, 9:00 out west, welcome to "weekends with alex witt." escalating impeachment battle with the trump team set to state its case further tomorrow. new arguments from both sides spilling over publicly today on witnesses, truth, evidence, and the president's character. >> do you take that as a threat? >> i think it's intended to be. >> i don't think the president is trying to do a death threat here. >> threat assessment. the president directs a tweet at congressman adam schiff. what exactly demean? reaction with different takes. >> take her out. okay? do it. >> stay tuned. the attorney for lev parnas says there are more recordings of the president talking to his client after he releases the newest tape. what can we expect? new fears another case of coronavirus con


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on