tv Meet the Press MSNBC November 10, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PST
and we ought to uphold this country to live up to what we send them to defend, and that is equality and justice for all. that should not just be rhetoric. that should be reality. or we should stop sending people to defend it if we're not going to live up to it. that does it for me. thanks for watching. i'll see you back here next saturday alt 5:p.m. eastern. up next, "meet the press" with chuck todd. this sunday, mounting pressure on pt.. on impeachment. more evidence military aid to ukraine was held up. >> no doubt there was a quid pro quo here. >> pending investigations that president trump demanded and now the public will get to hear testimony directly. >> we will begin our opening hearings in the impeachment inquiry next week. >> but the republicans insist mr. trump did nothing wrong. >> show me where there was a quid pro quo. the whole thing is manufactured. >> it's actually getting easier
to defend the president. >> my guest this morning senator rand paul of kentucky, and democratic congressman jim himes of connecticut, who sits on the intelligence committee. >> plus, another rough election night for president trump. republican losses in suburb yeah and in kentucky. >> if you lose, it sends a really bad message. >> you can't let that happen to me. >> suggests last year's blue wave is not going away. >> and the bloomberg bombshell, as democrats worry about the strength of their top contenders. >> a lot of people are afraid of big structural change. >> the way to approach politics today, to get things done, is not to question people's motives. >> michael bloomberg prepared to enter the race. i'll talk to a man many democrats wanted to run instead, senator sherrod brown of ohio. >> joining me is hallie jackson.
hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, yamiche alcindor, and "washington post" columnist david ignatius. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in telephone history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. president trump finds himself facing pressure on two fronts. on impeachment, a growing number on witnesses testifying before congress have now confirmed military aid was being withhold until ukraine agreed to publicly announce investigations into president trump's rivals. more confirmation that the ukrainians did know that there was a quid pro quo. and three witnesses who testified behind closed doors will do so in public this week. republicans signaled they hope to refocus the public hearings on joe biden's son and perhaps even on the whistleblower. >> then there was tuesday night's political fallout.
president trump made a special trip to kentucky to support matt bevin to see him lose a nail biter to andy beshear. democrats took control of both houses of the virginia legislature for the first time in a generation, and they also swept local elections from missouri to pennsylvania. the large takeaway, there's no ebbing the democratic tide among suburban college educated voters, the one time foundation of republican electoral success. that should be a bright flashing red light for republican office holders and for president trump next year, but democrats have their own flashing red light as deep worries about the prospects of their top candidates led michael bloomberg to take formal steps to enter the race. still on impeachment, there's no sign democrats are paying a political price, at least not yet. >> those open hearings will be an opportunity for the american people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves. >> democrats will begin to make their public case on impeachment to the country, as a handful of current and former diplomats testify to aquid pro quo.
the top u.s. envoy to ukraine, bill taylor, who opens hearings on wednesday. that was my clear understanding. security assistance money would not come until the president of ukraine committed to pursue the investigation of the bidens. >> ambassador bill taylor testified and gave the most sweeping and devastating testimony. >> the national security council's top ukraine expert, lieutenant colonel alex vindman, there was no doubt, senior state department official george kent also told investigators that president trump wanted nothing less than president zelensky to go to a microphone and say investigations biden and clinton. and president trump's former top russia adviser, fiona hill, testified that u.s. ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland, told ukrainian officials in a july 10th meeting at the white house about how he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney for a meeting with the ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations.
and sondland this week altered his testimony to acknowledge a quid pro quo as well. saying he told a ukrainian official that the resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement. congressional republicans have struggled to defend the president, some acknowledging a quid pro quo but insisting it is not impeachable. >> there are perfectly appropriate quid pro quos. and there are inappropriate quid pro quos. >> and now, arguing if there was a quid pro quo, the president did not direct it. >> nobody has testified that there's a quid pro quo ordered by the president of the united states. >> instead, pointing the finger at sondland, a month ago -- >> the text message that i saw from ambassador sondland, who is highly respected, was there's no quid pro quo. >> but now -- >> let me just tell you, i
hardly know the gentleman. >> and trump allies are reportedly eyeing others to blame, including white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. >> don't know what rudy did. i don't know what he's doing over there. if people want to look at rudy, that's fine with me. >> and joining me now from bowling green, kentucky, is rand paul of kentucky. senator paul, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> thanks for having me. >> let me start with the kentucky results first before we get into the events of later this week. just your initial reactions. matt bevin, do you see his loss as something bigger than matt bevin? about the republican party as a whole? >> well, when you look at all the races, there were six state-wide races, we won 5 out of 6, republicans won 5 out of 6. we did lose a governor's race, but the interesting thing is we beat a lot of other candidates no one expected us to.
so in many ways it was a red wave in kentucky. i think it was mostly about one race and the teachers were very unhappy. he tried to fix the pension and the teachers' anger came out. i think he was trying to do the right thing, which is save the pension for teachers. but it's tough when you ask people to pay more to keep their pension in place. people get unhappy. >> it's interesting. he was the only one of the candidates, you talked about the rest of the republican candidates who won below him. he decided to nationalize this race, make it about president trump, make it about impeachment. in hindsight, was that a mistake, do you think? >> you know, a lot of candidates do that because we have conservative voters in kentucky who elect federal representatives overwhelmingly because they're socially conservative and they support president trump. i don't think it's a bad strategy necessarily, but i think he had some other things to overcome. one thing was the anger of the teachers. but another was some problems within the republican base. he lost some republican counties that other republicans got over
60%. so there was also a problem within his base. and that's a complicated matter, but there are a lot of specific reasons and fights within the republican party that may have hurt him. >> let me move to the events that are going to be taking place this week. let me simply ask, if you been reading the transcripts, have they been released? >> i have been reading the reports. i guess my impression so far is i think the american people want fairness. and i don't think they're going to judge fairness when they're accusing president trump of the same thing joe biden did, threatening the aid if some kind of corruption is not investigated. it seems like everybody, both parties have been threatening aid if some kind of investigation either doesn't happen or is ended. and so i think really, what's going to happen is people are going to say they're impeaching president trump for exactly the same thing joe biden did. he threatened the aid if they didn't fire someone. and supposedly, the president did if they didn't investigate someone. so it sounds exactly like what joe biden did.
and if they weren't going to impeach joe biden they look like rip khypocrites for going only after president trump. >> you think it's perfectly appropriate for the president of the united states to have sought this quid pro quo from ukraine's government? i want to set aside -- i want to set aside vice president biden. is it appropriate for the president of the united states to have engaged in this? >> i think there's a real question whether you think the president should specifically go after one person. but there's a real question whether joe biden should have gone after one prosecutor. it's exactly the same scenario. >> one is president of the united states. >> let me finish. let me finish. there's a question about that, but if it were me, i wouldn't give them the aid because we don't have the money. we have to borrow the money frame china to sent it to ukraine. i think it's a mistake to give the aid. i wouldn't have played any of these games. i think the american people think it's unfair to treat joe biden to one standard and
president trump to another standard. >> i want to set that aside. i don't understand why that's always used as a deflection. does that mean you think it's now okay for the president to act this way? doesn't matter what we think of joe biden at this point. if it's wrong for this to be done, then it's wrong, period. no? >> it kind of does, but i will approach it from a different way. fairness is one angle, and i don't think people are going to think this is fair. but i think the second angle is this, foreign aid by law can only go out to countries that are not corrupt. so if you think that a country is sakting in a corrupt way, the president can always withhold aid until the corruption is fixed. you have to get into the mind of trump and his advisers and say he didn't really believe the bidens are corrupt. i think he absolutely does. i think you could give him a lie detector test and say do you think the bidens are corrupt and you're investigating corruption and corruption is in the law, you can't give aid to a country that is corrupt. this has nothing to do with legality or illeegality or impeachment.
it's a partisan way of trying to overturn the election. >> do you believe there should be a distinction between whether the people in the administration ask for a quid pro quo and whether the president himself directed it? do you think there's a distinction there, if there's no proof the president himself directed it, but for instance, as we have seen the transcripts indicate, perhaps mick mulvaney was directing this, does that distinction matter to you? >> i think we have gotten lost in this whole idea of quid pro quo, and senator kennedy kind of hit the nail on the head, is that if you're not allowed to give aid to people who are corrupt, there are always contingencies on aid. even president obama withheld aid. congress said give them $300 million in lethal aid and he sent them blankets. presidents since the beginning of time have resisted congress and there's a back and forth jockeying over what is sent, but presidents have withhold before for corruption. i think it's a mistake to say he withheld aid until he got what
he wanted. if it's corruption and he believes there's corruption, he has every right to withhold atd. i think it's a big mistake for anyone to argue quid pro quo, and i know that's what the administration is arguing, i wouldn't make that argument. i would make the argument that every politician in washington, other than me, virtually, is trying to manipulate ukraine to their purposes. menendez tried it, murphy, biden. they're all trying to manipulate ukraine to get some kind of investigation, either to end an investigation or start an investigation. >> let me ask the question this way, though. if you're the average american citizen watching this, should you be concerned that the president of the united states wanted a forn government to help investigate a political rival? do you understand why some people think that is basically abusing the office for political gain to mess with the election? >> i think you're right, chuck, but i think an equal number of people are upset hillary clinton hired a british spy to hire russians to get dirt called the steele dossier, so here's
hillary clinton in the middle of a campaign hiring a foreign spy agency. >> you did it again to me. you went back. i said okay, there's behavior bad over here, behavior that's bad over there. all that does is condition us for more bad behavior. when do we put a stop to it? >> what i'm asking for is they be treated equally. i think the american public is going to say if you didn't do anything to hillary clinton for hiring a foreign spy, why is it wrong -- >> two wrongs make a right? >> people want to be treated fairly. i'm not saying i would have done it that way. all i'm saying is you're going to impeach president trump and let her skate. people see that as unfair and it becomes partisan. that's why no republicans voted for impeachment. >> is there anything you could hear that might mike you -- are you an open minded juror? let me ask it that way. >> i'm very open minded and fair minded. you'll not mead a person who is
more fair than i am. i really do believe that justice should be color blind, gender blind. you nomit. i think justice should. but one of our traditions about justice, about finding justice is defense should be able to present their witnesses. so if you can't call hunter biden and you can't call the whistleblower, that's sort of a sham, that's not even roly a trial. i'm fair-minded but the senator has to be fair. >> senator rand paul, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. i much appreciate it. >> thank you. >> joining me now from connecticut is democratic congressman jim himes who sits on the intelligence committee. welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning, chuck. >> let me start with this. will there be new information the public learns from these public hearings on wednesday morning? >> there will be new information. i suspect most of the public has not read the released transcripts, and what they're going to hear is they're going to hear immensely patriotic, beautifully articulate people telling the story of a president
who, let's forget quid pro quo, quid pro quo is one of these things to muddy the works, who extorted a vulnerable country by holding up military aid. yes, they are going to hear something new. chuck, if you'll grant me one second here, my head is only now decombusting from the exchange you had with rand paul. i have spent 11 years in public service defending the press. and when senator rand paul comes on and says that what donald trump did and the transcript is there, extorting a foreign government for his personal political gain, and that's exactly the same thing as joe biden, that's what he said, as joe biden, saying this prosecutor should be released when joe biden is acting in consistency with american foreign policy and back then we had a whole list of things that had to be done, and this was american foreign policy. it was european union policy. it was imf policy. that this prosecutor needed to go. when rand paul says that that's exactly the same thing as the
president of the united states saying you need to find dirt on my political opponent, and with all due respect, chuck, when you say, well, do two wrongs make a right, let's be clear. the president of the united states demanding, extorting a country to do his bidding to go after his political opponent has nothing to do with joe biden executing the foreign policy of the the united states or hillary clinton, who is a private citizen, doing opposition research on her presidential opponent. those are radically different things and what the president did is wrong and impeachable. >> let me ask you something, you just said you think the words quid pro quo shouldn't be used anymore. it's a lot of your own colleagues that have been using it. it's part of this debate. do you feel as if that word just doesn't penetrate the seriousness with what happened? >> well, i have two problems with quid pro quo. number one, when you're trying to persuade the american people of something that is really pretty simple, which is that the
president acted criminally and extorted in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it's probably best not to use latin words to explain it. the other thing i object to is this is where the republicans went. extortion doesn't require a you give me this and i'll give you that kind of quid pro quo. it simply requires using your muscle to get something that you don't have a right to. so look, and by the way, of course, the crowning absurdity here is they're all pretty much admitting because ambassador sondland has refreshed his recollection, they're all basically admitting there was a quid pro quo, but gosh, it wasn't that bad. it was exactly the same thing as joe biden or hillary clinton. we have to get off this quid pro quo thing. because it's complicated. they have already attested to the fact that it occurred, and what we're dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power in a way that damaged american national security. >> are you at all concerned that if there's one missing piece of the story, it is you don't have
yet a first-hand witness of the president directing mulvaney and the omb to put this hold on here? obviously, that's a closed circle. you haven't been able to talk to people in that circle yet. how important is it for you to have any kind of first-hand witness in that circle before you vote out articles of impeachment? >> that's a really good kwshz. and i think what's going to happen in the next couple weeks is the president's defense you heard last week, which is all of these people had second-hand knowledge, that's going to crumble. lieutenant colonel vindman was on the call. a lot of people, remember, who are the president's people. people in the white house, these aren't democrats on a mission to bring down the president. the president's own people will testify to what they knew. you ask a very interesting and specific question. of course, we would like to have mick mulvaney into the congress to say what i think we know, you will learn in the testimony that
it was mick mulvaney that was driving the decision, pushing the decision to suspend the aid, and everybody who saw it happen will tell you we had no idea where it was coming from and it was unanimously opposed. it would be good to have mulvaney explain to us his conversations with the president, but remember, chuck, his conversations with the president, unlike all the other claims of privilege, that is actually probably covered by executive privilege. but the american people are going to need to decide, did mick mulvaney go home and think this up, what the heck, i'm going to suspend $400 million in military aid to ukraine, or did he perhaps get some kind of suggestion or order from the president of the united states? >> is there at all a distinction since he is still a confirmed head of a cabinet level agency, office of management and budget, does that at all impact his claims of executive privilege? >> well, that's a good question. i can tell you for certain that the white house would say that
the conversations that mick mulvaney as chief of staff would have with the president would be protected by executive privilege. and wherever you come out on that, of course, that's an argument that i'm quite sure could go on for years. so as a practical matter, i don't think we're going to hear from him. but what the american people are going to hear, boss we'll ask this question. how many times in american history has the director of the office of management and budget sat in a room full of national security leaders and said we're cutting off aid, and what the american people will hear is that's a wildly unusual if not unique event. >> are you at all concerned that your colleagues on the other side of the aisle may turn the process and make it such a hard process to follow for the public, perhaps some might call it a sabotaging of the process, where it makes it more difficult for you to air this public testimony? >> well, of course, that's been the strategy all along. of course, to attack the process. and when you look at their
witness list, you can sort of tell what they're doing. they're doing two or three things. number one, they're calling a number of witness tz we already deposed. these are witnesses who aren't going to say that the president's actions were okay. in fact, they'll say they had very serious concerns about it, but well, gosh, i didn't know this was going on. i wasn't sure if this was illegal. that's not a very strong defense. the other thing, of course, you know, joe biden's son is on the witness list. they're going to try to do exactly what you're pushing back on senator paul for doing. they would like to bring joe biden's son in front of the american people to discuss his role on the board of buris ma, and as ayou pointed out, we can have a long conversation about whether the sons and daughters of high ranking officials should do this sort of thing. that has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the united states president in extorting ukraine in a way that damaged our national security. >> congressman jim himes, democrat from connecticut on the intel committee, you will become an even more familiar face to
viewers on wednesday. thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you, chuck. >> when we come back, the public is about to hear directly from witnesses in the impeachment hearings. will that move opinion one way or the other? panel is next. panel is next.ts'. don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement. until i found out what itst it actually was.ed me. dust mite droppings! eeeeeww! dead skin cells! gross! so now, i grab my swiffer sweeper and heavy-duty dusters. duster extends to three feet to get all that gross stuff gotcha! and for that nasty dust on my floors, my sweeper's on it. the textured cloths grab and hold dirt and hair no matter where dust bunnies hide. no more heebie jeebies. phew. glad i stopped cleaning and started swiffering. (mom vo) it's easy to shrink into your own little world.
especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sis) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sis) whoa... (big sis) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. ♪'cause no matter how far away for you roam.♪ys.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home. is eh, not enough fiber.al? chocolate would be good.
panel is here. hugh hewitt. yamiche alcindor. my colleague, chief white house correspondent, hallie jackson, for us here at nbc news, and "washington post" columnist david ignatius. trying to figure out how republicans want to defend the president is, continues, to be a bit of a mystery. let me put up an array of attempts. the varurous ways various defenders of the president have attempted to defend the president. >> get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> i look at it this way. the aid is there. and the investigations didn't happen. soy if there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one. >> nobody has testifies that
there's a quid pro quo ordered by the president of the united states. >> i think we can add rand paul, i'm against all foreign aid and i don't even know why they're arguing about that. there is not an agreement among congressional republicans on what to do here. >> no, and they're not getting any messaging from the white house on what strategy the white house would like them to take moving forward. i would argue, i wonder, is it almost beside the point. to the president, the only thing that matters is these people are defending him. how they're doing it is almost irrelevant to the president. >> he doesn't care about the substance of the defense. >> i'm told by sources he's watching closely television. he's looking to see who is defending him and how vociferously they're defending him. he's varscillating between ange and relishment. sort of liking bringing this on, and the president wants to see his people defending him. how they get there, meh. >> david? >> well, i don't know about meh. i think in those two segments with rand paul and jim himes, we
had a good snapshot of how difficult this is going to be for democrats. to convince the country that this is extraordinary behavior that disqualified the president from office. this argument, this is purely partisan, it's back and forth. well, this one did it, that one did it. the one thing that will break through, i think, is if this can be dramatized so that our diplomats struggling against the president feel like soldiers in a battlefield. and their commander abandoned them. if that gets through or if there's something corrupt that rudy giuliani was doing that we discover, i think that changes the stakes. it makes it a very different process, but based on what we heard just now, you know, it's political bickering and that's the way the people hear it. >> i know where you are professionally and personally on this, but it does seem as if congressional republicans wouldn't mind a sacrificial lamb. is it mulvaney or rudy? >> i read those stories. i imagine it would be rudy giuliani. i'm doing my best to read all the transcripts.
i have enormous respect for the department of state. people know my son works there and mike pompeo is a good friend of mine. i'm trying to be very respectful of them. but i don't see any impeachable offense. i see a back channel that the state department has hated since harry hopkins went to for fdr, since kissinger went to china. the state department hates back channels. when they blow up, they blow up badly, but there's nothing illegal. it's policy dispute. we're on the verge of the first partisan impeachment since 1868 wrrbs and i don't think the american people like this at all. purely partisan vote in the house. that's what we're going to have. >> i think impeachment in '98 was a partisan affair. >> it was bipartisan vote. >> justin amash voted for it, too. >> not a republican anymore. >> it would make it about as bipartisan as the other one. yamiche. >> republicans have had at least 14 ways to defend this president, and the president really wants fierce loyalty. my sources at the white house basically say that the president
wants a republican party that is talking about him in a positive light, who are making the arguments that frankly you're making, hugh is making, which is the president did nothing wrong. or the president might have done something that was a little problematic, but this is how foreign policy works. we have to give them something to get something. i will say that democrats are very -- they're very focused on how to tell the story this week, and i'll told from democratic aides they wanted taylor to be there because he's a vietnam vet. and they wanted marie yovanovitch there because i'm told she cry pded in her testimony. >> if republicans have a messaging issue and what we're talking about is there is a different sort of varied strategy on the gop side, what you're seeing from democrats is looking for a shift in their own messaging strataemg. you saw that with congressman himes. don't use the latin. people don't get quid pro quo. >> they don't? >> that's the argument democrats are making. if they're saying people don't get it the latin, let's call it
extortion. i had one democratic congressman say let's call it extortion, something more visceral. >> this is the uyeeugene robins article. enough with the latin. what trump did is bribery. is this really the democratic party's -- is that why there's 40% not listening? i don't think it's the latin. >> their problem is this is something complicated. it gets more complicated with all of the names and far away events. and here we had one of the leading democrats saying we don't want to talk about quid pro quo anymore. that's too complicated. if that's too complicated, all the rest of it is too. again, if there's a simple way to dramatize this, where these people sound like soldiers fighting our fight for us, and they got undercut, then it will be different. >> democrats have to deal with 2,677 pages of testimony to bring that to life. and as a result, they're trying to say look, we need to change the language here, because for my cousins in miami and other
places, quid pro quo might be too complicated when you're running to the supermarket or going somewhere rather than saying the president tried to bribe a foreign country to try to get an investigation into joe biden. that's an even more simple way they're trying to make their argument. >> there was no quo. the aid got there. you heard that. >> tom cole, which is, well, i didn't like any of this, but the aid got there. >> in the first two impeachments, there was a concrete act, a break in and an affair in the white house, where you had a date stamp, a time that people understand. not only is that not here, there's a compelling argument that what the president did is just what other presidents do. i don't think the senate, there will be an impeachment. they're going to send an article over. i don't think the senate should take it up. they should reject the motion to proceed and never touch it. again we will have this done again in secret hearings, exparty contacts. just a bad president. >> the may be one person who doesn't want to have a senate trial. actually, there may be a bunch of them running in the state of iowa. maybe for the reason you don't want the senate trial, hugh.
and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action.
durability, and pete buttigieg's ability to win over the coalition. all of which may explain michael bloomberg's thinking and why he decided there's space for him to get in the race, which brings us to sherrod brown, the senator from ohio that many other democrats saw as the ideal candidate to sort of bring the two wings of the party together. but he also declined to run. senator brown has just written desk 88, 8 progressive senators who changed america, about the senators who sat at the same desk he sits at on the senate floor. senator brown, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good to be back. thanks, chuck. >> before i get into the book, i have to ask you about, look, this timing here of this week, we had planned this interview with you before michael bloomberg jumped in. but you have seen plenty of the speculation. you have gotten the phone calls. there's a lot of democrats wringing their hands about this field that think you should be the one that had jumped in this
week, not michael bloomberg. what do you make of this feeling in the democratic party about nervousness of this field? >> well, it's genetic that democrats wring their hands about presidential campaigns. we always do. i think it's a good field. i think we're going to beat trump. i think when people, when voters make the contrast with president trump's promises, especially his promises to workers in lordstown ohio and all over the industrial midwest in contrast that with trump's betrayal of workers on minimum wage and overtime and all the ways he betrayed workers in the middle west and betrayed our allies in the middle east. i think that's the contrast voters are going to make with whomever our nominee is. and we win in 2020 as a result. so i don't have this hand wringing anguish that a number of my -- a number of others might have. >> look, you and your wife have said the phone calls have increased lately. not decreased since you decided not to -- basically, you and
michael bloomberg, i feel like, decided around the same time not to get in. much of it was attributed to joe biden. and i know you say that wasn't the case, that biden's strength didn't push you out. but what do you say to these folks that call you up and say reconsider, senator? >> well, i have just never -- i said from the beginning, i never have had the big desire to be president of the united states. and to get in this race, to run for a year, you have to want to do it more than anything imaginable. that's what separates the ambition of those who get to the senate or governor and those who decide to run for president. you have heard the line, chuck. 56 years ago, a senator once said the only cure for the presidential virus in the united states senate is embalming fluid. i don't want to be that guy. i love what i'm doing. i just didn't have the huge ambition you need to be president of the united states. >> do you feel as if all of these top candidates that say the top four, as it stands right now, that all four of them, sanders, warren, buttigieg,
biden, could carry ohio right now? >> oh, i don't know about right now. it doesn't matter right now. it matters 12 months from now. and yes, i think that ohio's been a swing state for pretty much my whole lifetime. and i think that it will be a swing state again. i think it will be competitive. i go back to the promises this president has made. he promises -- he makes promises to farmers and then he chooses the oil industry over family farmers in western ohio. i think that is eating away at his support. and i think a democrat that talks about the dignity of work, looks into the camera, looks out at these rallies, talks to people about respect and honoring work, whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge or raise kids or work for tips. all workers, we win if our candidates campaign through the eyes of workers and then govern in 2021 through the eyes of workers. >> you made it clear from the get-go you believe if democrats can make this about promises that president trump made and failed to deliver on, that they
have a good chance of winning. do you think campaigning on medicare for all rather than on protecting and expanding obamacare does that? >> i have said publicly that i think people should say i want -- i don't want to destroy obamacare and start over. i want to build on it. but i think the issue -- step back for a second, chuck. all the democrats want universal coverage. some want to get to it at different speeds and on a different path. contrast this to where this president went to congress, lost by one vote, trying to wipe away the affordable care act. now he's in a court in the northern district of texas trying to take away the consumer protections for pre-existing conditions. trying to take away the medicaid expansion in ohio, 600,000 people in my state, the republican governor, john kasich, and i teamed up to do. president trump wants to make that contrast, democrats want to get to universal coverage. republicans want to take it away. >> senator, on the impeachment front, you have said it's the right thing to do, but you have also said you're a juror and you're going to keep an open
mind. if you -- in fairness, if you believe impeachment is the right thing to do, it doesn't sound like your mind is very open on the president. >> my mind is open in terms of the trial. my mind, i'm concluding -- richard nixon never did what this president did, go to another country and said please, please help me and my campaign. so that's why he should be indicted, i mean, impeached. same as indicted in a court of law. when we go to the senate trial, 100 jurors, this is the only time you'll hear me say this, we shouldn't listen to public input on this. this is a trial, and we should look at the evidence and does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, to the point of conviction and removal from office? and i hope all 100 members of the senate, republicans and democrats alike, look at it that way, as they would in a court of law. i'm not a lawyer. most of my colleagues are, including most of my republican colleagues. they understand what this should pleen. they should stop talking about
getting rid of this and do that. >> senator, your book, desk 88, we had a little fun with it here. of the senators you wrote about in your desk here, two of them have made more appearances on "meet the press" than you have, george mcgovern and bobby kennedy. we're showing a picture. >> who would have known that? >> yeah, who would have known that? you're going to catch them, though, i have a feeling here. the desk, have you carved your name in your desk already, and senators do this in all 100 desks, don't they? >> yeah, well, some senators don't. harry truman signed ten desks, and some senators consider it defacing public property. it started when i was a freshman and went out. we had to choose among ten desks that were not yet taken as the last to choose, freshman, and i pulled out the desk drawer. no bad seats. you're not sitting behind a post at fenway park. i just started looking in the desk drawers, and i saw the name kennedy after seeing mcgovern and al gore and hugo black. i asked ted, which brother was
this? he said, well, it's got to be bobby's because i have jack's desk. that intrigued me. i share a love of history like you do, chuck, so i thought about the eight senators, some of whom are pretty much lost to history, but all of them believed as i do, and that's really the key, and the reason i wear this lapel pin, a canary in a bird cage fighting for workers' rights when they didn't have the rights, that the power of government can be a positive force in people's lives. that's why i wanted to outline these eight progressive senators that did medicare and collective bargaining and civil rights and so much in between. >> senator brown, congratulations on the book. thank you for coming on and sharing your views. i appreciate it. >> also. thanks, chuck. >> when we come back, where have all the house republicans gone? s your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. ♪ my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness. the psoriasis. i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to.
serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx. the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. for all of the heroes who serve us, t-mobile is here to help serve them. that's why we're offering 50% off family lines for military, veterans and first responders. so they can stay connected, on our newest, most powerful signal ever. and now, we are also offering half off our top samsung phones
for military, veterans and first responders. our service is just one way we say thank you... for theirs. welcome back. data download time. president trump has already remade the republican party. that means republicans on capitol hill have had to adapt to fit in or find another line of work. and it's the rate at which republicans are either resigning or retiring before 2020 that is truly remarkable. and it could have an impact on impeachment as well. when president trump arrived in the white house in 2017, there were 241 individual house
republicans at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. today, 100 of those 241 members individually have gone or announced they're leaving. a departure rate of 41%. and we're not talking about republican seats lost. this is the number of individuals who have left. even if they handed their seat over to another republican. at this point in president obama's first term, after a brutal midterm in 2010, mind you, he had lost 88 members. a 34% departure rate. but it's the reason these people have left washington that may matter more. in the case of the house under president obama, the majority of democratic departures, 54 of them, came via the ballot box in that infamous shellacking. but only 23 members voluntarily retired or resigned and left obama's washington. under president trump, house republicans have lost 36 members at the ballot box, but they have lost far more, 50, because of retirement or resignation. and there are likely to be more departures over the holidays.
these sort of the final prime announcement time in an election cycle. when members may decide they don't want to be part of the house minority, particularly in president trump's washington. so keep these changes in mind next week when the house impeachment trial becomes a public affair. all that turnover in the past few years means more new faces, less institutional memory than it had just a few years ago. particularly in the president's own party. and that could make the partisanship even more bitter than we have seen it up until now, if that's even possible. when we come back, why some candidates should be happy and some not so much now that michael bloomberg looks as if he's about to run for president. end game is next. s next tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.
to he♪ you grow and protect your wealth. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. a new buick? for me? to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. i shouldn't have. but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... this year, turn black friday into buick friday, all month long. current eligible non-gm owners and lessees get
back now with "endgame." yamish, i want to play here the welcome that michael bloomberg got from his fellow primary opponent. let's just say it wasn't very warm. take a listen. >> this is a stark difference from someone that can just come in and plop down checks and buy a bunch of ads. i think people are going to see through it. >> i think that our elections should not be something that are bought by billionaires. >> so tonight we say to michael bloomberg and other billionaires sorry, you ain't going to buy this election. [ cheers and applause ] >> interestingly, both joe biden and pete buttigieg didn't have harsh reactions to that the way
other candidates did. >> especially for progressive candidates. they see michael bloomberg's money as the number one achilles heal that he has. also that means he can in some way buy ads and start to become competitive. now he is obviously very, very late. but i had someone to me it's not like michelle obama got into the area isand is going to completely shift what's happening. but remember president trump even though at that time he was the frontrunner, he skipped the debate and continued to still have momentum. and that's the message that i think people around bloomberg are saying that even though he's late he can probably still have a chance. >> let me put up the date. in the month of february less than 4% of all delegates are available. and with those four states. 3.9% of delegates are available. those are the four states he's going to skip. guess what happens in the month of march. 61% of all delegates are available. so if you were looking at it as
a business problem, you would say, yeah, resources with 61%, not four. >> but politics isn't logical and like a business. i think that's the argument that you are hearing. i have talked to sources on both sides of the aisle and they are raising questions about strategically does this actually make sense with the way that politics works today, with the way that coverage works today, yes, donald trump skipped a debate in what he was had a candidate. he was already in the race fully and wholeheartedly. by the way biden maybe didn't throw suede, but he definitely said, hey, if you look at the polls i'm not doing so badly, the implication of i don't know why bloomberg is getting in here. >> i want to put up the iowa numbers from march. he had a net negative rating among democratic caucusgoers in iowa. there are parts of the democratic party that support elizabeth warren that do not like bloomberg. >> no question that bloomberg has problems with a lot of resistance. but i think the fact that he's come in illustrates the
uneasiness in the democratic party among prospective voters in the field right now. i don't think this is the last late entering centrist democrat we are going to see in there. >> i think if biden continues to have difficulty, he has greater difficulty, there is going to be somebody else that we'll see. and i would think -- >> do you have a name, sir? [ laughter ] >> well, so i'll describe the kind of person who would fit. it's somebody who can bring the country together. a problem in looking at the field is that other than biden, it's hard to imagine elizabeth warren uniting the country for all of her strengths. so, somebody who served in the military, somebody who has that kind of national security credibility. i bet we'll have other late-entry personalities. >> hugh, michael bloomberg gave us a reason why he did not jump into this race in march. and it was quite blunt. take a listen.
>> but it's just not going to happen on a national level for somebody like me starting where i am, unless i was willing to change all my views and go on what cnn called an apology tour. [ laughter ] joe biden went out and apologized for being male, over 50, white, apologized for the one piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti-crime bill. >> and he wants to win democratic primary voters. >> i think he's being honest that perhaps the apology tour thing has cycled through the primary and that it's over and okay to be who you are. i thought kamala harris would be rising like a rocket right now. it's pete buttigieg. but i think we have a problem of scale, which is he can spend $100 million in 30 states and spend less than 5% of his fortune. no one has ever had this sort of resources. so when rudy tried the i'll wait strategy, he didn't have 55 to $70 billion on which to spend
$100 million. that's a lot of stuff. >> so let's talk about the elephant in the room with michael bloomberg. and it's really for all of the candidates not named biden, which is, what's your plan to win african-american voters? >> i have three words. stop and frisk. that will be the thing that will be the problem for michael bloomberg. people will remember the fact that african-americans were stopped and that a judge found it to be unconstitutional because it was racially discriminatory. and michael bloomberg just says i don't want to apologize for that. he never did apologize for stop and frisk. now i talked to a black republican who said i like that about michael bloomberg. but that's a black republican. most african-americans do not like that policy. >> it's not going to help him in the democratic primary to get that. and i think there are people close to joe biden's campaign who knows that joe biden does have the strongest coalition of african-american voters. and they're going who is bloomberg. >> he's got to get out of the cocoon and we'll find out. and maybe bloomberg's candidacy forces him to, like, let it rip.
>> so nothing works like success, right? and so if biden gets the momentum, if mayor pete does well in iowa, all of a sudden you are just going to see increasing returns to scale. the kind of inevitability who begins to really do well. >> well, we are in the phase where we're all focusing on the words. that's all for today but thank you for watching. but this is a gift which was lent to us by our hometown nationals. it's the world series trophy, the commissioner's trophy. i so desperately just janet to grab, put my fingerprints all over it. actually, i just hope it lives here for years and years to come. more importantly, enjoy the veterans day holiday tomorrow. be sure to thank a veteran. and we'll be back next sunday because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.
♪ good evening, everyone. welcome to "kasie dc." i'm ayman mohyeldin. going public, weeks of closed-door testimony about to be out in the open as the fight over impeaching the president is televised in front of a national audience. assistant house speaker ben ray lujan joins us as democrats try to make the case for removing the president. but there are signs that the country is not paying attention or not yet on board. plus, turning our eyes to alabama once again. jeff sessions