>> chris, great to see you as always. i'm in for hallie jackson this morning. we're going to go to capitol hill where some of president trump's defenders are addressing reporters. let's listen in. >> whatever you want to call it, it was in there the whole time. and if you had any take-away other than the fact that when ambassador sondland talked to the president, he said i wanted nothing, there are no conditions, and all i want to make sure of is that we get this behind us. and i can tell you, it had nothing to do with any quid pro quo, regardless of what the attorney says. i can tell you jim and i were there for the entire thing, the entire deposition, and the president made it very clear to ambassador sondland that this had nothing to do with any leverage or any wrongdoing. >> we were there for the entire time. yep, ask one.

>> reporter: does that change your opinion of him as exonerating the president? >> nope, a statement is a statement. >> msnbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill. bring us up to speed there, because i heard some familiar talking points from congressman meadows and jordan. it appears they were talking about ambassador sondland's previous testimony. so help us understand what they were talking about and the other things that we're tracking on capitol hill today related to this impeachment inquiry. >> reporter: so the reference you heard there was to some reporting from over the weekend in another publication that said ambassador sondland had told the committee that he did in fact think there was some kind of quid pro quo between the president of the united states and ukraine back when he testified week before last. ambassador sondland is actually back on the hill this morning, reviewing his testimony. he did not answer questions from me or from any other reporter on his way in. the republicans on that committee have some time this morning to talk to reporters, because today's witness is not showing. charles kupperman, a former

national security aid to john bolton, filed a lawsuit with the district court here in d.c. on friday night asking the judicial branch in a sense to weigh in on whether his obligation is to honor a subpoena from congress or orders from the executive branch not to testify. and as of this morning, that lawsuit had not even been lieu m the court, kupperman will not be testifying this morning. he's important to democrats because he'll represent the first witness who was actually on that phone call, the phone call that started this whole impeachment inquiry. and while democrats will get another crack at another witness who was on that call on thursday, the big take-away with kupperman, is i think you can look at him as a proxy for whether or not john bolton, the former national security adviser, will appear. the two men worked together for quite a long time. they share the same attorney. and it's possible that this court fight over whether or not kupperman will testify could influence the negotiations to get john bolton here at some later date, geoff. >> garrett, help us understand

the response from congressional democrats. because kupperman's attorney makes the case that his client isn't in a position to determine whether or not he should appear, given that there is this dispute between the legislative and executive branches. but house democrats say that's not good enough. >> reporter: yeah, the house democrats are very frustrated by this, particularly because they did get another court victory last week bolstering the impeachment inquiry from the start. but democrats have made it clear from the word go that they are not going to wait and have these prolonged court battles over testimony, over the subpoenas of documents. if a witness doesn't show up or if they refuse to honor a subpoena, democrats have said they're going to use that as evidence of obstruction, essentially to say thank you very much, we will take your noncompliance as evidence that you have something to hide and we will move on. rather than get bogged down in these extended court fights. there's some fear that by delaying this entire process you could loose the public poemt um

necessary to be successful in an impeachment fight. so rather than go through a protracted court process, democrats will say we're going to consider this obstruction and move on. >> garrett, we heard from the republicans there at the open of the show. have we heard from adam schiff, the house intelligence chairman yet? >> reporter: we are expecting to hear from him any moment now. i was just down outside the skiff where the republicans were speaking. we had been expecting adam schiff, but it was the republicans first. i suspect you will see adam schiff before you get out of that chair. >> my friend garrett haake, i will see you back on the hill sometime today, buddy. >> reporter: we'll be here. >> with me now is a former national security counsel member in both the obama and bush administrations. i want to start with your reaction to charles kupperman not showing up today. >> in some ways i'm not surprised. the closer that the house gets to the decisionmaking process around the president of the united states inside the white house, inside the national

security council staff, the more of a fight we're going to see. i'm very interested in another testimony later this week, which is tim morris son, the former senior director for russia and ukraine. so he's the hub of information. he has lots of access to both the call, he was on the call. he probably is likely engaged in the o and b decisionmaking process, which would establish the quid pro quo. so i think tim morrison also has a lot of information. >> kupperman and bolton share the same attorney. john bolton is the big get. that's the guy that house democrats really want to hear from. >> and it's clear that john bolton wants nothing to do with this. i suspect because he knows -- he was very clearly aware there was some sort of wrongdoing. he fold fiona hill tell the lawyers, i suspect he was also involved in the decisionmaking on putting the call transcript on a separate server. so i think john bolton has a lot of things that the congressional

investigators would be interested in. >> how does the nsc work? yes, they are white house officials, but do they have the same sort of loyalties to a president as a political appointee would or do they see themselves as being independent, serving the office and not the president himself. >> it's a mix of political appointees and career officials. kupperman is a political appointee, morrison is a political appointee. most cases, they're career civil servants from the cia, defense department, treasury, all the different agencies and departments of national security. so usually it's very much a professional career driven place. >> based on the evidence and testimony that democrats have sort of sewn together, what's the take-away for you? what do you think of the case? >> i think it's pretty obvious. i think the president in his own words in that phone call essentially asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival. and to me as a former national security person, that's a

violation of his oath of office. it's an abuse of power, it's using the instruments of the presidency to essentially, you know, interfere in the u.s. election process. >> kelly, thank you so much for that insight. we're also following new developments after the death of isis leader abu bakr al-baghdadi. president trump says he's considering releasing some video footage of the dramatic raid that took out the most wanted terrorist in the world. >> we had a great weekend for our country. we captured a man that should have been caught a long time ago. >> the president making his remarks before taking off for chicago, where he's due to arrive later this hour. and as we learn now details about the operation to get the isis leader, there are new reports that the u.s. and its allies have killed the likely successor to baghdadi. hans nichols is awaiting the president in chicago. hans, let's start with you there in chicago.

the president making some news before he took off to where you are saying he's going to release or he might release some of the footage of the raid of that capture. >> reporter: geoff, the president is clearly reveling in the details of the final moments of baghdadi. he sees a strategic value and symbolic value. we don't know to what extent the president was involved in the military planning, but he is intimately involved in the post operation media strategy and he's clearly leaning toward releasing the raw footage. >> the amazing display of intelligence and military gr. so that was a big it. the question was am i considering releasing video footage of the raid? and we may take certain parts of it and release it, yes.

>> reporter: so guys, that is a strong indication the president of the united states wants that video footage out there. it's almost like he's pretending to be a junior public affairs officer at the pentagon. that's always the first question when there's any sort of military operation, is there video. the president seems to intuitively understand that and is leaning toward releasing it. now, he's going to come here and he's going to be addressing a crowd of international police chiefs from all across the world. we'll see to what extent he tries to talk about baghdadi to this crowd and to what extent he tries to marry this conversation. >> hans, we're going to go back to capitol hill, because i understand house intelligence chairman adam schiff is talking to reporters. >> it's deeply regrettable. he was compelled to appear by a lawful congressional subpoena. just within the last few days, of course, the district court has ruled that the impeachment inquiry is perfectly valid. witnesses like dr. kupperman need to do their duty and show up.

i want to compliment the nine other witnesses who met similar opposition from the white house who were instructed by the white house not to appear, but honor their lawful obligations and came forward, did their lawful duty. we greatly appreciate the courage that they have shown and that other witnesses will show who are scheduled to appear. the lawsuit that dr. kupperman filed in district court has no basis in law. a private citizen cannot sue the congress to try to avoid coming in when they're served with a lawful subpoena. we expect that the court will make short that argument, but nonetheless, we move forward. dr. kupperman had testimony we believe would corroborate the allegations of misconduct that other witnesses have made. but we move forward and we will obviously consider as we inform dr. kupperman's counsel his failure to appear as evidence

that may warrant a contempt proceeding against him. in terms of where we are, we have had a full schedule up until this point, we've got a full schedule from this point. i think we can infer from the white house opposition to dr. kupperman's testimony that they believe that his testimony would be incriminating of the president. it is also, i think, very plain additional, and powerful evidence of obstruction of congress and its lawful function by the president that, yet again, and even after a court decision affirming the right of congress to proceed with this impeachment inquiry, the white house has obstructed the work of a co-equal branch of government. if this witness had something to say that would be helpful to the white house, they would want him to come and testify. they plainly don't. after hearing the testimony or reviewing the written opening

statement of ambassador taylor, one can easily see why the white house does not want further evidence to come before the congress. i found it remarkable, i have to say, that the republican members of our three committees, including ranking members on oversight committees, took a position effectively of endorsing the white house obstruction, that the president in an impeachment inquiry or in any oversight inquiry to misconduct can simply instruct senior people not to testify. that is deeply damaging to this institution and any congress's ability to do oversight, let alone in the important context of an impeachment proceeding. nonetheless, we go forward, now armed with additional evidence of obstruction, as well as additional inferences that can be drawn that this witness's testimony would further incriminate the president of the united states. and i'm happy to respond to a couple of questions.

>> reporter: if the court adjudicates this, other witnesses will say they're going to do the same thing and wait for some guidance from the court before they come testify? >> i have more confidence in the witnesses that we've invited to appear and will subpoena to appear, that they will perform as the nine witnesses that have gone before have, that they will do their duty, that they will honor their lawful obligations and they will show the kind of courage that these other witnesses have shown. >> reporter: mr. chairman, when you say we're going to move forward, does that mean you're not going to extend on pursuing an enhanced court process? and also is this a sign getting from somebody as high up as government, does that mean the inner circle of the people you've subpoenaed, like cabinet members, bolton, people like that you're not hopeful anymore? >> well, you know, it's hard to say what other senior officials will do. i'm sure they'll get like instructions from the white house. and if they do and they fail to

appear, they will be building a very powerful case against the president for obstruction, an article of impeachment based on obstruction. so each time the white house steps in to obstruct congress from getting documents, and of course we know now that there are any number of very important relevant documents the state department is withholding from congress. but in time they also withhold witnesses and force them to refuse to appear or attempt to ignore lawful process, they will merely build thebstruction case against the president. in terms of how we will use litigation, or not use litigation, we are not willing to allow the white house to engage us in a lengthy game in the courts. so we press forward. >> reporter: what does this mean specifically for ambassador bolton? if they do decide to kbo to the courts, will this add weeks and months?

>> we will not allow the white house to delay our investigation. any acts of obstruction, any effort to prevent the congress and therefore the american people from learning more about the president's misconduct will merely build a public case for obstruction of congress by this president. and let's keep in mind what we have learned in two short weeks, thanks to the courageous testimony of many state department, defense department and other national security officials. we have learned that a president of the united states abused his power to coerce an ally that is fending off russian occupation of its territory in order to get political dirt on an opponent. conditioned a white house meeting, and as mick mulvaney acknowledged, conditioned military support to fight off an adversary of the united states. conditioned those things on getting political help in the

form of an investigation into one of his opponents. i can understand why the president doesn't want these witnesses to come forward. what i find harder to understand is why the republican members of this body in this house don't want these witnesses to come forward. where is their duty to this institution? where is their duty to the constitution? where is their respect for the rule of law? this will not be our last president. and as i underscored today, they ought to understand the imperative of a congress to get information from the executive. without it, we cannot do our jobs. thank you. >> we've been listening to house intelligence chairman adam schiff, react to the nonappearance of the big witness for the day, which was charles kupperman. let's go back to hans nichols, nbc news white house correspondent and i'm told we

actually have garrett haake on the hill. garrett, i'll go to you first. i was struck by listening to adam schiff, the house intel chair. he didn't seem like he was holding out hope that charles kupperman would come back before the committee. he says we're going to move forward and draw an adverse inference to this absence. we'll assume that the underlying claim is true and that they might try to hold kupperman in contempt. >> reporter: that's right. we've heard the democrats talk about this possibility in theory, but now we're seeing it in action here, where adam schiff said we will use this as evidence of an article of obstruction of congress. putting it right on the table. he said they're not going to engage in a rope-a-dope with the white house. just by the fact that kupperman is choosing not to appear, is being ordered not to appear by the white house, suggests that he has evidence that would be bad for this white house and that's how democrats are going to treat this going forward. he did say that he expects that the courts will dismiss this lawsuit. he doesn't think it has any k t

constitutional bearing. he think the courts will ultimately decide with the committee that moving forward, they're not going to get bogged down in trying to get one particular witness in front of this committee, but rather just use the white house's stonewalling in this case by preventing his testimony as evidence that they've got something to hide that charles kupperman would have testified about. >> someone tossed him a question about whether or not the house investigators expect to hear from john bolton. what did he say on that front? >> reporter: no answer to that question. he took a question to his right. clearly not wanting to engage on this. that's been part of the strategy here. schiff and the democrats running this investigation have tried not to show their cards too much in terms of the witnesses that they have called. some of them would be folks -- the vast majority of witnesses who have been called are not household names. and even the ones who we knew would be central to this inquiry, like ambassador yovanovitch, we tend to get the notice a few days in advance.

democrats do not want republicans and the white house to have a chance to move -- you know, to gather their notes and compare notes, plan testimony of these witnesses. democrats know there's some strategic value in inviting people or subpoenaing them and then having them show up rather quickly before the administration can either move to block their testimony or try to coordinate wit other witnesses. >> great point. and hans, i'm going to repeat something that house intelligence chairman adam schiff said because i know it's noisy where you are. he said if the witness, talking about kupperman, if the witness had something to say that was helpful to the white house, the white house would want him to testify. they clearly do not. how does the white house fight back against that argument? >> reporter: well, they'll make arguments about executive privilege, executive immunity, absolute immunity. you see that in all the letters. what schiff is basically saying is they're guilty by inference, they're guilty by not showing up. garrett hinted at this, but you clearly see the house moving towards a potential second article of impeachment on a

broader obstruction charge. now, what does that do? that's a catch-all charge, but it also allows them potentially to accelerate the process. it's a strategic response to if the white house tries to slow walk this, the house can always say, look, we're going to slap you with obstruction as well. there are some other testimony later this week that i think may be complicated by the kupperman decision, namely we have tim morrison, a senior director for russia and youreurope, as well alex whitman. will barr, the attorney general, is expected to be here with the president of the united states. and remember, that investigation into the origins of the mueller investigation are now criminal. so we'll looking to see whether or not there are any conversations on the sideline by the president and his attorney general as it relates to the overall investigation, geoff. >> my friends and colleagues, hans nichols and garrett haake, my thanks to both of you. later this hour, the congressional fallout from the raid on baghdadi.

top democrats were left out of the loop, but not top republicans, or russia, for that matter. why? the president says he has a defense. first some breaking news involving a lawsuit over the russia investigation. more on that in a minute. stay with us. johnson & johnson is a baby company. but we're also a company that controls hiv, fights cancer, repairs shattered bones, relieves depression, restores heart rhythms, helps you back from strokes, and keeps you healthy your whole life. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. 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. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

now with more breaking news from here in washington. this time at the justice department involving a lawsuit over the russia investigation. nbc judiciary committee pete williams is with us now. what do we know? >> reporter: this is all about the mueller report. last friday a federal judge here in washington ruled that the house should be able to get grand jury material that was redacted in the mueller report itself and the underlying evidence that backed up what's referred to in the mueller report, and he ordered the justice department to turn that over to the house by this coming wednesday. well, today, as expected, the government has appealed that ruling. first of all, they say they believe they have a good case and if the material is turned over now, it's irrevocably made available to others and that the house, by a simple majority

vote, could make any of it public so that the lower court's ruling should be reviewed now, tcause the government would be he house doesn't really need this right now because it looks like the ukraine investigation is going to go on for several more months, and secondly the government says by the house leadership's own admission, the mueller report is not the basis or the center piece of the impeachment investigation. so for all these reasons, they tell the judge we want a stay right now and we are going to appeal this to the court of appeals. because the government says there is no basis in the law for turning this material over to the house. >> all right. pete williams, thanks for that. we appreciate it. happening right now here in washington, four democratic presidential candidates are making their pitch for the same voters. the left leaning jewish advocacy group holding its annual conference. pete buttigieg who you see on stage right now, talking to members of the pro-israel group

that supports a two-state solution in the middle east. later on today, julian castro, bernie sanders will address them. jared kushner is visiting israel to work on peace negotiations. so who is not at j street? joe biden. the former vp is making m headlines this weekend, dealing with his son hunter aidan beeps dealings with ukraine. >> he says the only thing you said to him was i hope you know what you're doing. >> i said i hope you thought this knew, i hope you knew what you're doing here. i never discussed my business or their business, my sons or daughters, and i've never discussed them because they know i have to do my job and that's it. and they have to make their own judgments. >> let's start with the parade of democrats addressing voters at j street. we've got nbc road warrior

vaughn hill yard who is there. a lot of attention right now. what are voters looking to hear? >> reporter: exactly, geoff. you've seen in the democratic race over the last three weeks, foreign policy has become front and center. and in the interview that joe biden did there last night, he actually brought up jared kushner, questioning his role inside of the white house. kushner is heading to israel this week and joe biden questioned the credentials that jared kushner has to be leading these middle east peace talks. of course the white house has suggested that these paus talks would come out after the israeli election, but of course the government in israel is currently at a dead lock and it's not clear if prime ben netanyahu will continue in his role. so you hear democrats talking about israel's role in the middle east. i want to bring in a student

from hunter college. chloe, you're a senior over in new york. tell me what draws you to j street and why is the conversation about the u.s.'s role in the middle east important right now? >> i think this at that point with benjamin netanyahu's really consistent threats of annexing the jordan valley, the continued engs spangz of settlements in the west bank, all of that is making it clear to young, progressive jews like myself that moving toward a two-state solution is incredibly important and benjamin netanyahu's threats of annexization are a direct threat to that. so we as the future of the democratic party are really looking for democratic american politicians to be taking leadership and pushing for opposing annexization, naming the occupation for what it is. it's a 53-year long occupation of palestinian lands and at this

point we are so excited that j street is launching our new campaign where we are asking the democratic national committee to change their party platform, which at this point rightly states a commitment to israel's security. >> chloe, i think this is some of what we're going to be hearing somever the summer, the loyalty of democratic voters that do not vote for president trump, one of the conversations that we should be expecting to hear addressed to these candidates in which elizabeth warren and pete buttigieg are already suggesting that they would be open to, and that is about u.s. aid money to the israeli military. about $3.8 billion a year is sent to israel from the united states and there's questions of to what extent should that aid money be used as leverage to essentially encourage and press israel to hold back from its continued expansion in the west bank, geoff. >> all right. nbc's vaughn hillyard keeping an

eye on j street. let's look at the other candidates making news. we're bringing in chief public affairs officer and author of the new book coming out "moving forward". i'm also joined by matt bennett, no relation, former assistant during the clinton administration who is now with the group third way. let's talk about the clip of the former vp we saw on 60 minutes. there is this asymmetry that democrats have to deal with. he's still talking about hunter biden, and yet president trump, his children making millions off the trump organization around the globe. president trump obviously still connected to that company. and ivanka trump is a senior adviser in the white house and that just kind of goes unnoticed. >> the hypocrisy is breathtaking, but you could take that about 17 times a day with the trump administration. i think the bottom line, though, on burisma and ukraine is ultimately it's probably good for joe biden, because he didn't

do anything wrong. that is clear. had he done anything wrong, we would know about it by now. he didn't. by contrast, what you're seeing is president trump totally focused on biden as the big threat. he is about to be impeached over steps he took to try to prevent biden from being his opponent. and i think democratic primary voters do not believe that biden did anything wrong with ukraine. they do believe that trump sees him as a threat and that might help him. it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it could help him in the primaries. >> let's talk about kamala harris, who sat down for an interview with axios yesterday. and she addressed what she called the elephant in the room, electability and race. let's take a look. >> is america ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the united states? >> america was ready for a black man to be president of the united states. >> and this conversation happened for him. >> i understand why she would frame it, her being a black

woman as being the elephant in the room. i see that as an asset, her running as a democrat, because the core of the democratic party is black women. >> look, i agree with you, and i actually am glad that she brought up that question. she needs to confront voters now on this. because i actually do agree with her. it's an elephant in the room. look, you have a president right now who uses his megaphone to divide the country. he attacks women of color, black women in particular, whenever he can when he wants to either distract or make a point. and he uses racist rhetoric. so i think we are in a place in our country where that is a question for her to ask. and yes, look, our base, the base you have black women are the backbone of the democratic party as we like to hear. but there is the other question, too. when we talk about joe biden, a lot of his support are from older fr older african-americans. so what does that mean when you

have cory booker in the race and kamala harris in the race as well? there is something there that needs to be asked. >> do older black folks support joe biden because he sat at the right hand of barack obama for eight years or does it have to do with pattern matching? which is to say if we're going to beat this older white man >> quickly. >> no question. come november, we need to beat but what you saw in 2008 was him with another older white man? african-american voters in south >> i don't think it's one or the carolina, obama went from about other. i think it's both. i think they like joe biden, 40 points down to winning south they know joe biden, they feel carolina after he won iowa. when voters in south carolina comfortable with joe biden. he was the right hand man of saw that he can win support other places with other kinds of barack obama when he was the vice president. i think it's all o voters, they switched. that could happen here. >> my thanks to both of you. ever wonder what it's like to be in the situation room when a raid like this weekend's goes down? two people who have been beside two former presidents when the stakes were high join me next. but first, the california, wildfires still raging across the state, powered by hurricane force winds. the governor now declaring a state of emergency. take a look at the firefighters battling the kinkaid fire in

northern california. that fire started wednesday and now covers an area larger than the city of baltimore. think about that. it's destroyed nearly 100 buildings, nearly 200,000 people have been forced to evacuate their homes, and millions are still without power. i've always been fascinated by what's next. and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop.

seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. i need all the breaks i can get. line? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. that's a lot of words. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

morning that u.s. forces and their allies have taken out the likely successor to isis leader

abu bakr al-baghdadi. "the new york times" reporting the isis spokesman was killed sunday as he was being smuggled across northern syria in the back of an oil tanker truck. the raid that killed baghdadi was named after kayla mueller, a 26-year-old humanitarian worker from arizona who wasis. her parents, while grateful for the terrorist leader's death, are still hoping to get some answers on what happened to their daughter in her final months. >> she was taken as baghdadi's bride, not by her own will, raped and ultimately killed by either baghdadi or someone in his organization. that's the question that we're trying to get answered. >> wow. with us now is held lean cooper, pentagon correspondent for "the new york times." she's here with new reporting on the raid that ultimately got baghdadi. i want to put up the headline from your latest piece.

it says trump's syria troop withdraw complicated plans for baghdadi raid. talk to us about the intelligence that led to the raid and about how the abrupt troop withdraw really complicated that effort. >> well, the pentagon has been working on sort of the preparations for this raid going all the way back to july, which is when iraqi intelligence forces picked up one of baghdadi's wives, as well as later on his courier. and it was through those channels that u.s. intel forces, as well as military forces, learned that baghdadi was surprisingly nowhere near where they thought he would be. instead of hiding out in eastern syria or in areas that were predominantly isis territory, he was all the way out in the west, in the middle of al qaeda territory. they ended up finding him at a compound that was known -- that was owned by another al qaeda

leader, the al qaeda offshoot. so they've been working on this for quite a few months now. and then in the middle of all of this you have president trump announcing that he's going to be withdrawing american troops from syria. and that through a huge span in the plans. >> i also want to play for you something that president trump said yesterday in his lengthy news conference. he was talking about baghdadi's final moments. >> he died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way. >> as you point out in the piece, there was no live audio from the raid. so square that circle for us. >> i wish i could. it's possible that the president spoke with commandos directly on the ground and got it from them. but when defense secretary mark esper was asked about this yesterday, he said i can't give you any details on that.

i don't know anything about whimpering and crying from baghdadi. and we have yet to be able to find anyone at the pentagon or in the military who has been willing to repeat the whimpering and crying part of baghdadi's last movements. so that's one of the reporting targets that i think a lot of us have right now. >> thanks so much for your insights. let's bring in two former administration insiders who have been inside the white house room. andy card served as chief of staff to president george w. push and here on set is who served as under secretary of defense under president obama. michelle, i want to start with you because we learned this morning that isis has yet to comment on al baghdadi's death. does that surprise you at all? >> no, it doesn't because this is probably quite a blow to them and their leadership is likely to be concerned with their own survival and avoiding being targeted themselves, based on

all the information we were able to collect at the compound. so they're in disarray and it's not something -- it's not an outcome that they're eager to acknowledge. so they're probably scam bling right mou. >> president trump revealed a slew of sensitive details about the raid. how did that sit with you? do you think he revealed too much? >> well, i became increasingly uncomfortable watching it, because you have to be careful that revealing details like that does not compromise the identity of your special operators and make them and their families targets for future terrorist attacks. and you also have to make sure that details don't inadvertently compromise the intelligence behind the raid. something that only a human source could provide, for example. so it certainly made me nervous. >> andy card, over to you. you were chief of staff to former president george w. bush on 9/11. something that the trump campaign did struck me as urn usual and i want to put this

question to you. presidents typically think carefully about their rhetoric when it comes to counterterrorism so as to avoid looking like they are trying to politicize it. but the trump campaign sent out this text. it says president trump has brought the number one terrorist leader to justice, he's keeping america safe. rate his job performance. take our poll in the next hour. how does that strike you, that sort of open politicizing of the military and of this counterterrorism effort? >> well, it's the nature of the change in times. we have now instantaneous communication. we did not have tweets when i served as chief of staff to president george w. bush. the social media wasn't as mature as it is today. so i think it's apples and oranges. you're comparing something today to something yesterday that wasn't even possible. i am troubled by it, but i think the genie is out of the bottle and this is likely to happen in

the future no matter who the president is. >> he says he was afraid of leaks, but by informing the gang of eight it also acts as an insurance policy for a president in case something goes wrong. >> i think it's wise to inform them. i do have great respect for the burden the president carries and he has the authority to order the mission and congress does not have any authority to order the mission. they can be informed about it. i think they did inform them pretty quickly after the mission took place. i'm willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt on that one. but i generally think it's good to follow the rules and invite the people who are responsible on capitol hill on both sides of the aisle, both the house and the senate, who are in a position where they have been told they have security clearances and you can trust them. and i think you can trust them to let them know about activities. although sometimes things happen so fast. i remember when we got saddam hussein in december of 2003, it

didn't happen at all the way this did. the delta forces and the task force 121 were tracking him down and i don't remember any call to the white house saying we think we've got him or we're about to start a mission. i heard about it after the fact when the general called back to the secretary and the secretary called the president and said we think we've got saddam hussein. so it was a very different time and the technology in the white house situation room was very different. it's so much more mature today because president bush actually had the situation room upgraded in 2006 to give them the technology that they are now using today. so it wasn't there in 2003 when president bush was president. >> quickly to you michelle, a question popped in my mind that i've been wanting to put to you. president trump says he wants to keep a small footprint of troops in the region to protect the oil. i'm told that that region that he's talking about is hard to get to, there's not much oil there and the oil that does exist is low quality.

so first of all, realistically, how could that happen given that syria is a sovereign nation? what's happening here? why is he making that argument? >> it's really bizarre, frankly, because if you really wanted to focus on preventing isis from regenerating and really doubling down on the gains we've made with these raids and you wanted to be able to execute future raids of this nature, you would never have walked away from the kurds. you would have kept that partnership where they were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting on the ground. they were providing intelligence that was invaluable for us. if you care about constraining isis, you would have kept that partnership in place. protecting some remote oil fields on the off chance that isis may eventually need to use that for revenue, it's just sort of -- it's a side show. and as you suggest, there's no real legal basis for us doing it, either. and it sends a terrible message to our allies and friend in the

middle east about what u.s. motivations and interests are really about. >> thank you for that reality check. my thanks to you both. with us now from capitol hill is congressman steve cohen, a democrat from tennessee and member of the judiciary committee. and i want to start with you on this question. president trump says he didn't give democratic leaders a heads-up of this operation and let's listen to the reason that he gave. >> mr. president, are you concerned that nancy pelosi and others can't be trusted with this kind of information? >> well, i guess the only thing is they were talking about why didn't i give the information to adam schiff and his committee. and the answer is because i think adam schiff is the biggest leaker in washington. he's a corrupt politician. he's a leaker like nobody has ever seen before. >> a leaker like nobody has ever seen before says the president. how does that strike you? >> well, it's just the personalization of policy that we've seen with this president.

he doesn't work with others. he doesn't try to form a team. he doesn't think ahead and he doesn't take advice. it's all about him. this raid was him. the fact was the raid was about our military, the outstanding delta force and the cia and the kurds. and he doesn't give credit where credit is due. and not sharing information with the other policymakers like adam schiff and speaker pelosi just jeopardizes him if the raid was unsuccessful and he wouldn't have an opportunity to say you knew about it and you didn't comment. he leaves himself open on the back end. that's because he doesn't listen to anybody who would give him advice and tell him why it was important to notify leaders. >> the house speaker says she wants a briefing for the entire house about this baghdadi raid. do you have a sense of whether that's going to happen, and if so, when? >> i suspect it will happen, if nothing else, so that trump can trumpet can -- his alleged success, which is the success of our military and the the intelligence, but it's also important for us to see we

should know history. and obviously, he's deciding and making up history as it fwoez. he didn't talk to commanders on the ground. they wouldn't have heard it either. the dog was in the tunnel. there was noise. they weren't listening to him whimpering and crying. i was a history major. history is important. it shouldn't be that the creative mind of a narcissistic president who makes up fables to embellish his actions. >> while we have you there on the hill, i want to throw impeachment questions your way. we have another week of close-door testimony. at what point are the hearings going to go public? >> i suspect give or take thanksgiving. we have lots of additional material from the witnesses we have had that give us more individuals to call. those will be an intel committee and gather information. i suspect before thanksgiving

we'll start going public. the weird thing is the republicans are so insist on being in public, but when it's public, it's going to be dynamite and the public will see just how much the president abused the power and jeopardized a country fighting the russians in their own nation with a war. and that we shouldn't be using congressionally mandated moneys to help an ally fight off russian aggression. the public will be, i think, realize why this is a valid and good impeachment article and issue. and while we're talking impeachment, us i just want to mention my respect for john conyers who passed away. the impeachment articles were put out on richard nixon. john conyer was a civil rights legend who made this country much better. i miss him. >> we're certainly remembering the former congressman on this day. thank you for that.

here's a live look at the stage in chicago where the president will speak next hour. chicago, a city he's loved to attack before and after taking office. but today is his chance it do it in person. but will he? we're back with our sources say, coming up next. people 50 and older at average risk. i took your advice and asked my doctor to order cologuard, that noninvasive colon cancer screening test. the delivery guy just dropped it off. our doctor says it uses advanced science. it's actually stool dna technology that finds 92 percent of colon cancers. no prep, and private. colon cancer screening that's as easy as get, go, gone. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. i need all the breaks i can get. line? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. that's a lot of words. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ we'd love some help with laundry.

spray and scrub anything with a stain. wash the really dirty clothes separately. tide pods with upgraded 4-in-1 technology unleash a foolproof clean in one step. aww, you did the laundry! it's got to be tide. ( ♪ ) only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®. the end might not be as happy as ayou think.end. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke! but the good news is you can rewrite your ending and get screened for stroke and cardiovascular disease. life line screening is the easy and affordable way to make you aware of undetected health problems before they hurt you. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your

arteries for plaque that builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and heart disease. so if you're over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond annual checkups. and if you call us today, you'll only pay $149-an over 50% savings. read it again, papa? sure. i've got plenty of time. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more.

one of the leaders of the house democrats freshman class is now on her way out. 32-year-old congressman katie hull resigning days after

admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a campaign stafferer. >> we have done everything that we can to pass the pils. >> once seen as a rising star in the democratic party, congresswoman katie hill now set to step down. the freshman lawmaker making the announcement in a letter that reads in part, it's with a broken heart that today i announce my resignation from congress. this is the hardest thing i have ever had to do. but i believe it's the best thing for my constituents, my community and our country. it comes after the house ethics committee said it would look into allegations he will have a sexual relationship staffer. hill denies the claim but admits she did have a relationship with a female member of the campaign. hill called it consensual but inappropriate. this week that relationship provided toer for the tabloid pages when nude pictures were pub lush ed online.

hill is going through a bitter divorce and in that emotional letter to constituents, hill blamed her abusive husband and hateful political opera tufs for the leak. having private photos of personal moments weaponized against me has been an appalling invasion. i am not a perfect person and never pretended to be. katie was elected to congress as part of the blue wave flipping a district long held by republicans. and making a name for herself as vice chair of the powerful house oversight committee. she now has the distinction of being the first female member of congress to resign in the me too era. house speaker nancy pelosi saidhill has made great contributions as a leader of the freshman class but acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a member

entenable. time now to look at what sources are saying. jonathan allen is here now. >> our colleague adam edelman have been reporting on mitt romney, who has been in as to the with president trump over the efforts to get ukraine to investigate joe biden. mitt romney is isolated in washington and in utah over this from republicans. he's really not bothered by that. we talked to a bunch of romney advisers in washington who said he's standing alone because he's state iing the obvious. they feel like it should not be difficult for the republicans to call out the president and say what he did was wrong as romney has done. back in utah, there's some mixed reaction to romney, but certainly a lot of folks are unhappy with them getting in the fight with with trump. there's a lot of people who are still pleased with the president and they don't like the clashing within the republican

leadership. but for the most romney is standing alone. we'll see if other republicans follow him. there does not awe peer to be a vision for a presidential run as some have speck lalted. his chief of staff said he's ruled that out. >> jonathan allen, thank you for that. thank you for watching this hour of msnbc live. more news with my friend craig melvin up there in new york. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. msnbc headquarters in thorks. we're going to start with the breaking news. house intelligence chair adam schiff acc obstruction. it's the latest in the ongoing impeachment saga after a key witness today acting on orders from the white house refused to be deposed. also president trump is about to speak in chicago this hour after teasing the potential release of footage of the takedown of the most wanted terrorist ps. but he's under fire this morning for are revealing classified

details about the raid that killed isis leader baghdabu bak baghdadi and the other major story we're watching is california in flames right now. mandatory evacuation orders are in place. 200,000 people have been told to get out so far including hospital patients, jail inmate, college students as well. we'll go to california in a bit. we start with that breaking news on capitol hill right now. a key witness has refused to show up to a scheduled deposition this morning and democrats are now preparing to hold it in contempt of congress. >> w