yourself, i think of something different. that's if you watch "30 rock." that's wrap it up for this hour. some people know what i'm talking about. get what else is 50? three letters, a-l-i ali velshi. >> thank you, friend. >> you're welcome. >> people pay attention to our interaction on tv. you know an hour ago when i introduced you and i called chris jansing, it said chris jansing. i couldn't see a picture of you until i heard your voice, it's my friend katy tur. >> i'm chris jansing? >> it said chris jansing in our script for some reason. >> that was my bad. >> you're right in front of me. >> i wouldn't say chris jansing because you're right in front of me but i didn't see you on tv. it said chris jansing. >> that's okay. chris jansing will be with you tomorrow and you can say hello to her right in person. and i'm sorry that i won't be there to say hi back.

but happy birthday today, ali and i hope you have a wonderful evening. i hope you have special plans. >> well, anything like the day i had, i'm in a bit of a sugar coma, but it's fantastic. thank you, my friend. you have yourself a great afternoon. as katy said it's tuesday, october 29th. this man has no credibility. he's shooting holes in the constitution. not my words the words of joe biden. the political rival who is allegedly targeted by president trump in the ukraine scandal. what president trump did is closer to coming into public view because any minute we're expecting the release of the resolution from house democrats. right now, top ukraine the -- the top expert, this man lieutenant colonel alexander vindman is testifying under congressional subpoena to talk about his concerns over the administration's pressures on ukraine. his testimony might be the most damning yet. why?

he's the first person in front of the house impeachment investigators who witnessed the phone call. his opening statement has been called quote extremely, extremely, extremely disturbing by the acting house oversight chairwoman. republican gop senators are struggling with how to answer for the slow drip of facts coming out of the testimony from credible career witnesses. after fox news host laura ingraham and two guests tried to undermine the credibility of the lieutenant colonel vindman, decorated veteran with baseless accusations, senator john thune and gop representative liz cheney strongly defended vindman. thune said quote, it would be a mistake to attack his credibility and representative liz cheney said we need to show we are better than that as a nation. joining me from capitol hill

is msnbc's garrett haake. what's the latest? >> vindman is giving the opening statement, very powerful for the lawmakers who saw him do two things -- first, confirm the contents of the call with the president of ukraine and of the united states. the first person who is actually listening to the call to testify today. he mentioned another meeting and one other point he explicitly links the president's action to being damaging to national security. he explained it as it makes it less likely that we and ukraine can work together to counter russia and that's the heart and soul of the case that the democrats are trying to get to impeachment articles. to get to the reason to remove president trump. so far, we have not heard much more about the actual content of his testimony beyond that opening statement.

but the opening statement alone as you pointed out earned the three extremely disturbing -- at least from one lawmaker today. that's pretty bad. >> let me ask you this. the republicans have been hammering on democrats to vote on an impeachment inquiry. experts have said it wasn't a necessary thing to do but it was likely inevitable that it would happen. once democrats vote on that, what happens to republican strategy on this? >> well, we're already seeing this. republicans are saying it's too little, too late. that the entire process they say has already been corrupted by the way that adam schiff and the other committee chairs who set up the closed door depositions have handled it. kevin mccarthy, the leader of house republicans this morning said it was the fruit of the poison tree. anything that comes out of these depositions are already moot essentially, shouldn't be taken seriously. the republicans won't vote for it so if the idea was to remove one republican talking point here by having this vote, that has been done or me happens will be done. but a new talking point has

sprouted up in the place. that's why the democrats have not done it in first place, the republicans will move the goalpost to satisfy them. we are awaiting to see the text of the resolution and we're awaiting it before the start of this broadcast but we haven't seen it yet. we don't know if it's based on any changes being made it to it still. but i suspect we will know a lot more soon about what democrats are proposing. >> thanks, garrett haake on capitol hill. i want to talk through why this particular testimony is so damning. vindman is the only witness so far who was on the phone call when trump allegedly asked for ukraine's help for the 2020 election by investigating the bidens. vindman said in the opening statement obtained by the news said i did not think it was

appropriate and i was worried about the u.s. government support of ukraine. here's why. aid to ukraine passed with bipartisan approval from congress so after this call vindman realized that if ukraine pursued this investigation, quote, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play that would likely result in ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has maintained. this wasn't the only meeting he saw first hand. on july 10th, he sat in on a meeting in washington that involved top administration officials from both the united states and ukraine. now, this is important. during that incident, eu ambassador gordon sondland spoke about ukraine delivering specific investigation in order to secure a meeting with president trump at which time meeting short. then after the meeting, ambassador sondland again emphasized the importance that ukraine deliver the investigation into the 2016

election, the bidens and burisma. that's the ukrainian gas company. vindman stepped in telling sondland that his statements were inappropriate and to investigate the bideness had nothing to do with national security and that such investigations were not something that the national security council were going to get involved in or push. end quote. vindman alerted the national security council's lead attorney about both of these instances. now, the president weighed in this morning tweeting why are people that i have never even heard of testifying about the call? just read the call transcript and the impeachment hoax is over. ukraine said no pressure. joining me now, a woman who served in the clinton administration, special adviser to samuel berger and she was under secretary of state -- sorry, she was formerly the undersecretary of state in

public affairs during the obama administration. and cynthia alksne, a legal analyst for msnbc. the president says read the transcript. not really a transcript, but a memo of the phone call and it will prove that the ukrainian president said no pressure. just to be clear because donald trump can sometimes be confusing about these things, nowhere in the transcript is that the case. the ukrainian president has subsequently said including again today to one of our reporters that there was no pressure but that -- but if you just read the transcript you would not come away with that conclusion. >> and it doesn't matter. he has no choice but to say because his country is dependent on us, but the abuse of power doesn't have to do with what zelenskiy thought, but it was the abusing of the american power. it's not important. then -- and if you read the transcript what you see is a president abusing power. so i'm all for everybody reading the transcript.

it's very damning. i don't understand why the president continues down that line. at some point the republicans have to move from there was no quid pro quo which is not required but they have to move from that line of defense to it's not impeachable because it's so clear from not only this witness, but all of the other witnesses that in fact he did demand these investigations in return for the american military assistance and the meeting in the white house that ukraine so desperately needed. >> tara, vindman, it was obvious to him that was not correct. it strikes me that it would be obvious to most national security experts, diplomatic experts, people like that if you were in on that phone call that something here is amiss. he was smelling a rat the minute it happened. both in the july 10th conversation with gordon sondland and in the july 25th phone call that is now famous. >> well, it's not only that foreign policy experts have realized this is bad, this is

wrong, i think gradually the american public is going to come to understand something fundamental here. ukraine is our friend. ukraine is a country that we have wanted to help. that is the official u.s. foreign policy. the president is denying ukrainians aid was flipping that foreign policy around. and i will go out on a limb here and say i think this is quite similar to iran/contra. it was a scandal many decades ago under ronald reagan. the issue in that one was did the president know that the foreign policy in that case towards iran had been flipped? in this case, it's the president who has turned it upside down and all of these experts, some of whom said wait a moment, this is exactly the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing. >> let me just ask you both to hold for a second because we

have just -- i have been given the house resolution. this is the first look at the text of the impeachment process resolution that the house is getting set to vote on this thursday. i believe garrett haake probably got this exactly when i got it. so i don't know how much you have had a chance to go through this, garrett. it's an eight-page document and it's in slightly large type. this is what the house will vote on? >> that's right. this resolution does a couple of things. it authorizes the continuation of this impeachment inquiry and then it directs the next steps to all go through the intel committee. remember, thus far we have had three committees handling this together. intelligence, foreign affairs and oversight. the next step will be the intel committee. this document authorizes two things in the short term that are notable. first, the release of the transcripts of the depositions that have been happening behind closed door. they'll be released in

electronic form. it doesn't specify how broadly but presumably that means all the way to the public. it also authorizes open hearings to be conducted by the intel committee. if there's one thing in here that republicans would like and one thing missing that i suspect will be upset about, the resolution does allow republicans to request witnesses. the minority can request to call witnesses. they have to submit detailed reasons why they would want these specific witnesses to be called and the majority could still push back or put this up to the full committee event at least republicans will have an opportunity to testify in the president's defense. what is not in here is anything that would allow for the president's counsel to come in and question some of these witnesses. that is something that republicans have been asking for. the opportunity to have the president's lawyers in the room asking questions. what i see here instead is in the instructions for the open

hearing it would be only committee members and employees of the employees who can be asking questions. the last portion deals with handing this investigation over at some point to the judiciary committee. when it falls to the judiciary committee who have thus far have been sidelined on ukraine to write the articles of impeachment or article of impeachment the democrats may decide if necessary here after these open hears and that's some additional texture laying out the procedures. the judiciary committee would start that process. but it leads to a lot of leeway to hold their own hearings and then move forward thereafter. >> in the eight pages, going through some of it and some of it is repetitive because it speaks to the department of select committee, the intel committee and the oversight and reform committee and they both say similar things. i want to read what you're arer iffing to -- what you're

referring to and i think cynthia is still with us. the ranking member may be -- that would be a republican in this case, in this case it's referring to the intel committee, but it also refers to the oversight committee, the ranking member may submit to the chair in writing any requests for witness testimony relevant to the testimony described in the first section of the resolution within 27 hours for the first hearing designated to paragraph one. then they have a couple of other rights i suppose for republicans. it says, the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question of whether there could be some certain subpoenas, attendance, production of books, memoranda and papers and documents so they're saying that the ranking member in accordance with the chair can do that. if the chair does not agree, the ranking member can submit it to the committee for consideration.

>> yeah, that's right. in this case it would be devin nunes a ranking member of the house intel committee. the two undercommittees are essentially being asked to step aside here. it would be the intel committee alone that would go forward with the next stage, public hearing. >> just hold on -- hold your thought for a second because we have two republican members who are speaking right now. let's listen in. steve scalise and jim jordan. >> secret meetings. in fact it continues to deny the white house an opportunity to participate in this process. and so as all of this is going on, there have been new developments today that jim jordan is going to talk about that sink to an even lower point in terms of adam schiff trying to run a soviet style process we have never seen before. this isn't like benghazi, this is an impeachment inquiry. speaker pelosi's resolution

confirms it an a impeachment inquiry and all three others have allowed both sides to call witnesses. have allowed the white house to participate. that's not happening right now. and in fact, not only isn't it happening, but i think it's important for jim jordan to note what just started happening today in this committee. where they're trying to impeach a president behind closed doors without any due process. >> thank you, steve. i think most of you know that chairman schiff has prevented the witness from answering certain questions we have during the deposition. you know, one of the things you do in the depositions is you ask the basics, who, what, when where, why, when we asked the whistle-blower who he spoke to after important events in july, adam schiff said no, we won't let him answer the question. even at the start of the depositions -- you know this already, everyone -- at the

start of every single one, this not classified. they have their lawyers there they don't need schiff being chairman and lawyer and that's what happened today. he would not let the witness -- look, the democrats are not here -- oh, the republicans are trying to figure out who the whistle-blower is. we're trying to figure out who the witness list is. the resolution that the speaker has filed, this going to go to the judiciary committee. if in fact that they push it there. there will be witnesses called. we'd like to figure out who those witnesses should be so the american people can get the facts. get the truth. and we know who these individuals are so that it seems interesting to me that chairman schiff is so sensitive, i mean, pointed out last week there are 435 members of congress. one of them -- one of them only one of them knows -- >> all right. i want to go back to garrett haake. things that republicans won't be happy with the idea that there's no for row for the white

house and they're critiquing the process. they're not addressing the substance of whether there's an abuse of power. they're talking about process things comparing this procedure to prior impeachment procedures. >> yeah. that's been consistent throughout for these republicans relying almost entirely on process related arguments here about the way this inquiry has been conducted. although they have repeatedly referred back to the white house released memos/transcripts of the president's call and said they don't see enough in there to be im should correct myself had more time to review the resolution, there's a role for the president's counsel but not until the next step which is after report which says they must produce to the judiciary committee. only then could the president's counsel get involved in the traditional sense, questioning witnesses appearing at hearings

and so on. there will be that additional element later on. but ali, nothing in this lays out any specific dates. i mean, this could be weeks from now. months from now before we get to that point. and i suspect that'll be an issue that republicans will continue to hammer saying they think the white house should have a chance to defend itself more directly in this process. >> all right. as things stand, garrett, let's remind our viewers. we have been running a tally of democratic members who have said they would support some version of inquiry into impeachment of the president. when this vote -- this comes to a vote on thursday, what's it going to look like? does nancy pelosi know she's got the votes to pass this? >> well, nancy pelosi will not bring it to a vote on thursday unless she knows she's got the votes to pass it. she has been considered one if not the best vote counters in this business. no way that democrats will allow this to come to the floor on

thursday unless they're certain it will pass. but it seems increasingly clear if it wasn't before they have to do this on democratic votes alone. the question that we will have and the democratic leadership will begin the same process that our capitol hill team will begin right now which is with the members of the democratic conference here to see whether or not they will support this resolution now that they have had a chance to see it. by our count there's only seven democrats who have not said they will support some kind of impeachment oriented resolution. they will not support the inquiry thus far. that means if everybody else stays in line, this has enough votes to pass. but it is possible. you will see other democrats not ready to really put their name to paper, to put their hand in the air and affirmatively vote for this when the time comes. presumably next thursday. all that's a long way of saying, watch that vote timing. when nancy pelosi has the votes they will vote. when -- if and when she does not believe she has the votes they will wait. >> got it. thank you as always.

i want to bring cynthia alksne, former federal prosecutor back in along with a former special adviser to samuel berger. cynthia, this is a resolution to start the impeachment procedure formal formally. it's not a vote on impeaching the president of the united states. the only vote that congress would get on that is a -- a vote on the articles of impeachment which even if it succeeds does not impeach the president or get him out of office. >> right. it does have some legal implications. you know, the constitution does not require a vote like this. it doesn't require the house to put out the specific proposals and it gives the house complete freedom to do it any way it so chooses under the constitution. but with these lawsuits that are in the federal courts now, trying to get witnesses compelled to come testify and actually respond to subpoenas, it strengthens the hands of those people pushing for actual

appearances to subpoenas a little bit. if they have this -- if they have this vote. it's not required but it does help that argument and to that extent i think it will be valuable. >> tara, you heard jim jordan there. he's not speaking to the substance of this and that's the method that the president's defenders are using right now. no substantive discussion going on it appears amongst republicans about the stuff that we heard vindman testify to today or the stuff that we heard other officials who are either aware of ukraine policy or aware of how this went down. that does not seem to move republicans at the moment. >> no. it comes back to the process versus content argument. >> right. >> the democrats have been saying if you think this narrative on ukraine is wrong, bring forth your documents and

your witnesses. we have not yet seen many defenders of this ukraine's turn around putting ukraine in a box. presumably, the pressure is on for john bolton to come forward. i think he will be a critic of -- on content. but he may or may not avail himself of the opportunity. the second person who might be called is the secretary of state who presumably might be a defender of the ukraine turn around. the last one i think said on this unpacking what we've heard is television matters. public testimony is very different from reading transcripts or reading opening statements. when you have witnesses come back, bill taylor, the former ambassador to ukraine, george kent, colonel vindman, the public is going to meet these

people in a slightly different way and i think their heroic, diplomatic will be on display. >> i think that makes sense. tara sonnanstine, and former special advice tore the national security adviser, cynthia alksne. thank you to both of you. we'll continue to follow this with respect to the house resolution on impeachment. coming up, we're looking at what the death of abu bakr al baghdadi the fugitive leader of isis who ordered the torture and killing of countless men and women means across the globe. the ncaa takes a big step toward allowing college athletes to cash in on their fame. you are watching msnbc. make fitness routine with pure protein.

high protein. low sugar. tastes great! high protein. low sugar. so good! high protein. low sugar. mmmm, birthday cake! pure protein bars. try lemon cake. when you look at the world, ♪ what do you see? ♪ where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections.

relationships. ♪ when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. ♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

isis leader abu bakr al baghdadi was not the only high profile target to be take up out this past weekend. president trump confirmed in the tweet this morning that baghdadi's top replacement was also killed by american troops and a u.s. official tells msnbc news that the president was referring to the isis spokesman,

majeure. he was killed on sunday on which the kurdish led syrian democratic forces played a huge role. a short time ago, senate democratic leader chuck schumer said that senators would get a briefing on the raid tomorrow from defense secretary mark esper and general mark milley. in the wake of baghdadi's death, syrian kurdish forces say they're increasing security at prisons and detention facilities where tens of thousands of isis fighters and supporters are being held. joining me to take a closer look at what comes next is a former fbi counterterrorism agent and the founder of the n -- and ceo of the soufan group which provides intelligence security forces to governments and multinational organizations and is the author of "anatomy of terror, from the death of bin laden to the rise of the islamic state." i think now that we understand that american capability is powerful and that can happen.

more importantly, what does this mean for isis and representative of big terrorist organizations? >> it's always a good day when you kill the head of a terrorist organization especially somebody like baghdadi who was the caliph for a so called terrorist state. however, isis will continue to exist. the factors that's contributed to the rise in the first place persists. not only in iraq and syria, but in so many places around the world. thousands and thousands of people who joined isis in iraq and syria the thousands who came from across the world, 45,000 from 110 different countries to join isis those guys are just not going to melt away. they'll find another way to express their violence. and affiliates that isis have around the world would continue to proceed. however, the death of baghdadi is the death of the -- the image of isis. it significantly hurt the brand

of isis and the continuity of the so-called caliphate. why? there's a total vacuum of leadership today in isis. many of the people behind or the powers behind the throne in this room and most have been killed. the worst job in the so-called islamic state is to be the number two. you're immediately -- a few months you're eliminated. so now there's no one with -- you know, no one enough trusted or can be inspiring for the troops for the rank and file that can fit his shoes at this point. however, that does not mean that isis is over. >> bin laden because -- in the two books you chronicle a lot about him. he was inspiring and smart a tactician. where does baghdadi fit? was he kind that of guy? >> he was an image of a brand that happened around the world with, you know, the caliphate.

he brought back a caliphate supposedly. he -- you know, the social media contributed to the brand of isis and he was the face of that brand. definitely, you know, tactician. he depended a lot on strategists, especially the ba'athists to help him. however, he's not a bin laden. he considered himself among -- when he talks to the troops as the followers of bin laden. they say, we are the two followers of bin laden. wedge in bin laden's al qaeda, not the other al qaeda. remember the islamic state in iraq was a branch of al qaeda. it is very didn't when bin laden was killed versus when baghdadi is killed. when bin laden was killed al qaeda benefited from a deep cadre of people who had been with bin laden from even before he established al qaeda. some of them still exist until today.

the number two of al qaeda was al czar wowwy. they're still running the organization with him. and i think the situation with isis is a little bit different. you'll have a vacuum of leadership. it will be very difficult to fill that vacuum. why? because isis said we're a caliphate. in order to be a caliph, you need to be from koresh and an arab. koresh, the tribe of the prophet. the number two now that is supposedly going to be fit, you know, the position or fill the position of the caliph he's a turkman so it will be difficult for them to stay true to their brand and promote a leader that can be trusted by the rank and file. al qaeda did not have this problem. al qaeda had a lot of leaders who were there from before and continued to be there today. that's why i think there's a big possibility that al qaeda will do a play in order to get some

of these isis members back into the fold of al qaeda. >> you make it so much clearer. thank you. former fbi counterterrorism special group. and author of "anatomy of terror." as the speech -- impeachment inquiry moves forward, one trying to steer clear of conflict is zelenskiy. nbc news spoke to zelenskiy and asked for his thoughts on the unraveling situation in the united states. >> president zelenskiy, do you have any comment about what's going on in united states? >> i cannot talk about what's going on, i don't know what's going on in the usa, i'm so sorry. i'm the president of ukraine. so iy. so i have no -- >> did you feel any pressure

from answers about it. no more answers. i said already -- no. thank you very much. >> nbc news senior investigative producer spoke with zelenskiy and others in the impeachment inquiry. anna is joining us from ukraine. let's have a better sense of why ukraine and why president zelenskiy is treating that as delicately as he was when you asked him about it. >> well, zelenskiy is in a tough spot. he inherited when he won the election a war with russia and not too far from where we are right now, russians have been moving in tanks and what the foreign minister and others told me today is the ukrainians really need high-tech weaponsy

to fend the russians off. that's problem number one. number two, that's widespread rampant corruption throughout the country and he doesn't want to anger president trump or the trump administration. now, it did seem to me that people here were pretty confident in the bipartisan congressional support to support ukraine and make sure that ukraine is able to fend off russia. but still, he's in -- he's doing a delicate dance. so he doesn't -- he doesn't want to offend president trump and he doesn't want to be brought into this scandal. the foreign minister today did tell me that somehow through all of this, americans are more interested in ukraine and they're looking to sort of take advantage of that. which was interesting. >> anna, you had a conversation with the u.s. charge defairs, bill taylor, so let's listen to what he had to say. >> president zelenskiy ran on

two things. one was ending the war on the ukrainian soil and second was defeating corruption. he has done some very brave things on ending the war. and this message here, today, o component. developing the confidence of people here and people in the nongovernment -- so this is important. >> and the message, why did -- [ indiscernible ]. >> because this is close to the front lines. it's in the east. in the heart -- >> anna, tell us how bill taylor was even received at this event because he's gone back to his job after becoming a world famous figure because he's in the middle of this impeachment inquiry. >> well, there were hundreds of diplomats and businessmen from around the world and they have

been watching this story closely. it's not just here in the united states. and people read his opening statements for his testimony last week and people were coming up patting him on the back. giving him a hand shake. telling him great job and he was front and center on a panel today and it seemed like he was enjoying the attention. but he certainly -- if president zelenskiy was you know the rock star, he was definitely somebody that everybody wanted to hear from and talk to and have some one-on-one time with us. >> thank you for joining us, anna schecter, for us in the ukraine. today the ncaa took the first step toward allowing college athletes to monetize their fame potentially bringing an end to the century old policy on amateurism. you're watching msnbc. century oy on amateurism. you're watching msnbc. ging my moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. 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. [ referee whistle sounds ] ♪ sport dr[ cheering ]s when you need the fuel to be your nephew's number one fan.

holiday inn express. we're there. so you can be too. gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for. what's left is on you. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. so call unitedhealthcare insurance company today

and ask for your free decision guide. with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. call unitedhealthcare today as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu.

we are getting more reaction from capitol hill on the impeachment resolution that outlines the next steps forward in the impeachment inquiry. in a joint statement in the chairman of the three house committees adam schiff, jerrold nadler, elliott and moloney said the evidence paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the american

people will learn first hand about the president's misconduct. we'll continue to keep you up to speed on all of the developments on that front. switching topics now, the ncaa is taking the first step toward paying student athletes. now, this is a major milestone that would affect nearly half a million college athletes nationwide. just this afternoon, the ncaa board of governors voted to allow athletes to profit from the names, images and likenesses. but this is just the beginning. the organization needs to figure out how this would work within the rules. in a statement, the president of the organization wrote in part, quote, the board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals. up until now, ncaa rules have consistently prohibited players from hiring agents or being compensated by the schools.

the ncaa is a nonprofit but brought in more than $1 billion in revenue last year. joining me with the latest on this is nbc's ron mott. talk to me about this. >> so ali, this is a huge day because having worked at the ncaa 20, 25 years ago the ncaa has said that amateurism is pretty much dead when it comes to big-time college athletics specifically basketball and football. so this ruling today by the ncaa board of governors directed the three divisions to come up with some new language in the bylaws and policies to quote/unquote modernize college athletics. this is a ground breaking day and for the young men and women who will want to compensate themselves for their work and their talents so this is where this starts to get interesting. looking at some of the guidelines that the board of governors is directing now these

three divisions to work on and they want to see changes in these bylaws and policies before january 2021. one of the things make clear that compensation for the performance or participation is impermissible. in other words, colleges won't be allowed to pay a player to come and play football or basketball or any other sport on the campus but what it doesn't address is what we have seen over the country is boosters and other supporters of an athletic program funneling money to these athletes, principally because of their athletic talent. so that particular guidance is probably going to hit a snag or two as we go forward. there is tremendous competition for the athletes and their services and so that could be an issue coming down the line. it also says to protect the recruiting envirremain at or tr specific institution. as we said there are lots of recruiting violations and allegations of recruiting

violations over the years in college sports. particularly because these coaches and their programs know you get the best few together on a basketball team, for example, you can change the entire culture of the community with that competition. so it's still going to be there, the money being pushed towards the athlete is still going to be there, but at least now it's out in the open for the athletes to go and make some money to do a commercial for a car dealership or go on tv and hawk a restaurant in that town. this is good news for the athletes and following up on what the state of california did about a month ago. >> ron, i'm never unhappy to find out you're joining me on the show, but i didn't know i was getting an expert on college athleticism in having a conversation with you. so i deeply appreciate it as always, my friend. nbc's ron mott in chicago. >> thank you. just a few seconds ago, senator burr tweeted if college athletes are going to make money

off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. i'll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarship given to athletes who choose to quote cash in to income taxes. coming up next, facebook employees take aim at the hands off approach to political ads saying allowing politicians to post false ads is a threat to the company. and from google at our fingerprints to the speed of amazon prime, we reap the benefits of efficiency but our next guest says that comes with a tangled web of politics, economics and human technology. you are watching msnbc. economics and human technology you are watching msnbc king cold turkey. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives,

you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

this piece is talking yeah?. so what do you see? i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service, and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions. and i see it with zero commissions on online trades.

i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪ to exempt posts from politicians from the platform's community standards and fact checking isn't sitting too well with its own employees. "the new york times" reports that hundreds of workers have signed an open letter aimed at ceo mz msark zuckerberg and top lieutenants urging them to rethink the move. "our current policies on fact checking people in political office or those running for office are a threat to what facebook stands for." they went on to say, "it doesn't protect the voices but instead allows politicians to weapon use our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy." the employees also proposed a series of steps the company can take to improve the situation. they recommend holding political ads to the same standard as

other ads. doing more to distinguish political ads and restricting the use of targeting tools. they also suggest observing a ban on campaigning, prior to an election, and setting spending caps for politicians and political action committees along with clearer policies for political ads. a facebook spokeswoman told noo"the new york times" in a statement, "face booek's culture is built on openness. we appreciate our employees." "we remain committed to not censoring political speech and we'll continue exploring additional steps we can take to bring increased transparency to political ads." facebook is one of just a handful of companies that pull the strings when it comes to the internet. in his new book "beyond the valley: how innovators around the world are overcoming inequality and creating technologies of tomorrow," ucla professor takes a closer look at what he sees as the disconnect between tech companies and the people who use their products and how to fix the problem and reclaim control of the internet.

ramesh joins me now. thank you for being with us. as you pointed out in the commercial break, this is the 50th anniversary of the internet. today. the first electronic message was sent 50 years ago today. and if you were to poll people today, most people would say, look, this is fantastic, it has done terrific things, the internet. there's a lot of people who say it's wrecking part of our discourse and politic zps. >> right now we arrived at a moment where we're dependent on the internet, the internet is the vocabulary by which everything is expressed. get insurance through algorit algorithms. we experience news through the internet. >> yep. >> specifically through platf m platforms. now we're at a point where a concentrated set of a few private technology companies that the are not necessarily deeply educated in the public interest because they're technology companies, have become the places we go to for

all our digital experiences. so their own choices, not even their engineers, but their algorithmic systems which are optimized for their own private benefit, become what sort of divide and conquer us, so that's why we're at this moment now where we're trying to figure out how to get the internet on the right course, right, good for everybody. not just good for a few private companies that are worth more than any companies in the history of the world. >> so the first memory most people will have of their interaction with the internet was probably in the early to mid '90s, email, plat -- you know, the webportals and things like that. the advent of social media, this is great , everybody's going to be able to check everything, nobody will be able to lie again. turns out that's exactly, as is often the case with my prognosticatiprogres prognosticati prognostications, entirely wrong. in your book you say, if we can no longer trust what we see, if we're manipulated by what we see, understand to overcome the

forces that threaten our individual minds and hopes for democracy. indeed, human beings, bots and microtargeting algorithms play a role today in closing us off from facts, multiple points of view and the context behind the information we see. >> yeah. >> that's very powerful. that's the thesis of what the problem is, that opposite from exposing us to everything, it's limiting us. >> the internet exists because of all of us. i mean, we are the labor, we are the content producers, when we go on to facebook, we go because of what one another posts. right? however, what determines what we see is invisible to us. what these technological systems and, therefore, these technology companies know about us, we're left in the dark. >> this is really important because there are people who argue that people just put it on the internet, you see what you see. you'll get exposure to everybody's perspectives. there's an algorithm behind everything we see. >> yeah. >> we're not just seeing everything everybody posts. >> that's right. there's the potential to see

possibly everything -- >> right. >> -- and anything. what we actually see is a very narrowed vision of what that potential universe could look like because we -- the main issue is we don't know what drives that visibility. >> right. >> and as a result, what we found out, and here's the key point, is that those algorithmic systems, algorithm is just a ma mathematical method of sorting through. it's not the boogeyman. it's become the boogeyman because they basically optimized algorithms for corporate private return, that's how private companies function. as a result, what they found, their secret sauce hassen en o been tor secret sauce hassen - >> the algorithm is not the boogeyman. profitability is not the boogeyman. private companies are not the boogeyman. it's the idea we have figured out how to get people to engage and that's not necessarily -- we're not necessarily doing the right thing. >> it's an imbalance in this issue, right? it's the fact that it's governed simply completely by a private corporate interest, which are

not by their definition necessarily in the public interest. >> right. >> just by branding campaigns. my new book "beyond the valley" basically argues for a digital bill of rights, right? >> right. >> balances individual privacy issues. also vulnerable communities who are not at all in the world's, you know, of silicon valley or seattle or the chinese technology ecosystem. >> another thing you cover. ramesh, he's the director of the uc digital cultures lab and the author of a new quobook "beyonde vall valley." the book is out today. breaking news. i want to turn to dramatic video of a small plane crash in new jersey. take a look at this. this is the moment the plane appears to fall from the sky. this happened in colonia, new jersey. at least three homes caught fire after the crash. nbc's rehema ellis is live at the scene. rehema, what's the situation?

>> well, people here are calling it somewhat of a miracle, ali. take a look behind me, we are several hours from the moment that the plane crashed into this neighborhood early this morning and still you can still see smoke coming up from the area. where the plane went directly into the back of one of those homes. thankfully, no one was home at the time. authorities say. a woman was in her house next to -- next door, and she was able to escape unharmed. authorities say that is true of everyone on the ground. no one was hurt. the only fatality is the pilot. they're trying to figure out now with federal authorities on the ground now trying to figure out what is is that happened this morning. you point out we have the ring camera video from someone's front door. surveillance video. rather dramatic. where you can see this plane pummeling. people talked about, they heard the sound of a plane seemingly in distress. they didn't know what it was at the point. they heard something that sounded like a sonic boom. an explosion. people said they could actually

feel the ground was shaking. and they were shaking in their homes as well. and when they ran out to this house behind me, they said it was certain that no one in that house survived and luckily, no one was in the home at the time, but it's believed the pilot did not survive. ali? >> rehema ellis for us in colonia, new jersey. i want to take a quick look at this again. that is a picture which purports to be of the plane as it plummets into houses. i want to take a quick look at markets for you right now. you did -- you probably heard the s&p 500 hit a new record and b markets are continuing to trade at higher levels. going to see if we can put that up on the screen right now. what we are looking at, however, is a market that has turned -- it was sort of struggling through the course of the day and finally turned into the red. the dow not much, the dow is off by about 0.06, down about 15 points. but all major markets are down. the s&p also closing about 2 1/2

points lower and the nasdaq closing 49 points lower percentage wise. that's the biggest dropper. almost 0.06% lower. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm going to see you back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern with stephanie ruhl ae and 3:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we long abandoned the practice asking where the bottom is for donald trump and supporters in congress but we may finally have an answer. today as decorated combat veteran alexander vindman who works as the top ukraine expert at the white house headed to capitol hill to testify in the impeachment investigation into donald trump. he did so after being accused of being a spy by right-wing defenders of the president's. it's a despicable smear on a man who says he voiced his concerns about donald trump's demand for dirt on political rivals from the ukrainians out of a sense of duty.