and this takes me back to the point of the discussion before the breaking news and that is i think we are kind of immune to this, sort of sitting back. i don't see the outrage publicly by anything that this president has been doing. so we'll see. >> we'll see. my thanks to michael steele. most of all to you for watching. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. well, welcome to friday. not like any other friday. "mtp daily." good evening, chuck todd in washington. we begin with a big story breaking the last 24 hours. we told you yesterday, could be big, keeps getting bigger. we have additional new reporting

from "the wall street journal." moments ago from "the washington post." the post is reporting president trump pressed the leader of ukraine to investigate joe biden's son during a call between the two leaders at the center of this extraordinary whistleblower complaint. that follows this report in "the wall street journal" that broke moments before that which has them reporting president trump repeatedly pressured ukraine's president to investigate biden's son, urged him about 8 times to work with rudy giuliani to do that, who of course is the president's personal lawyer. nbc news hasn't confirmed reporting in either the journal or post, which broke moments ago, but we're working on that. we're talking to one of the reporters at the journal in a moment. the potential bombshell, have to put the word potential there, report comes after guilliani admitted he asked ukraine to investigate biden and his family, and he justified the president doing so, too, even without confirming the president did indeed do that. also comes out that the president was pressed by kristin

welker about what he may have said in communications with ukraine. >> it is a partisan whistleblower, it is just another political hack job. >> did you discuss joe biden, his son or his family? >> it doesn't matter what i discussed. i had a great conversation with numerous people, i don't even know exactly who you're talking about. >> do you know the identity? >> i don't know the identity of the whistleblower. i hear it is a partisan person. >> did you mention joe biden during the conversation? >> i don't want to talk about any conversation other than to say, other than to say great conversation, totally appropriate conversation, couldn't have been better. >> have you read -- >> no, i haven't. i just tell you it is -- everybody has read it, they laugh at it. >> and of course all of this is happening against the backdrop over battle of the disclosure of the whistleblower complaint at the center of this which the administration blocked from being officially sent to

congress. according to "new york times" and "the washington post" both, they report that the complaint from an intelligence officer involved the president making some commitment or promise tied to ukraine, although "the wall street journal" reporting indicates that one of their sources did not believe the president offered specific quid pro quo to the ukrainian president in cooperation for investigating biden's son. of course, it may have been implied. folks, these are serious allegations facing the president. if the big scandal of 2016 was the president knowingly accepting foreign assistance to help his presidential campaign even if he didn't quote collude to do it, could the big scandal heading to 2020 be the president seeking more foreign assistance? joining me on the phone, one of the reporters on the breaking "the wall street journal" piece, dustin voles. appreciate you taking a few minutes to do this. you have reporting that eight times the president asked the ukrainian president to work with

rudy giuliani but in reporting you can't specifically say he dangled the aid. how do you know, is this the same phone call or could we be talking about two or three different communications? >> great question, chuck. thans f thanks for having me on. we know there was a call in july between the president and the president of ukraine. we're told during that conversation there were eight times in which the president mentioned working with his lawyer, rudy giuliani, to talk about biden's family, look into concerns on biden's family. we haven't heard there was quid pro quo related to military aid but what we know from yesterday's house intelligence meeting with the inspector general, the intelligence community, it sounds like the whistleblower complaint at question here involves a series

of episodes. so we're talking about one specific call in july with the ukrainian president but we don't know what else is in the complaint that goes beyond this conversation. >> sounds like one of your sources was reading from the transcript or read a transcript of this call. it means this transcript is readily circulating, do you get that sense and that we're going to see this or they're intent on trying to block congress from getting access to it? >> i cannot predict the white house's next move any better than you can, chuck. you know, i will say i can't discuss our sourcing on the story, but what i can say is typically when there are conversations between the president of the united states and head of state of another country, there are memos, handwritten, contemporaneous notes and transcripts that are shared among national security council staff, if needed,

relevant cabinet secretaries and others. certainly if there are transcripts of this floating around, there would have been a number of people, small number, but a number of people that may have seen that. whether or not we're going to see any of the notes come to light remains to be seen. >> one of the more intriguing facts that you seem to uncover also that was sort of lower in the story i believe, hope i am not conflating a couple of the reports, that rudy giuliani told you that the state department set up his meeting with the y ukrainian president. that would be out of the ordinary, wouldn't it? >> yes, it would. we said the meeting was between guiliani tamiani and top aides. mr. guilliani said the meeting was set up by the state department, so he briefed the state department on the conversation after the fact.

the state department declined to comment for the article. >> and i know this is a bit of a semantic, maybe it isn't, depends who has jurisdiction of this, who has this transcript? is this in the state department or is this in dni? is this in the white house? i say that because there seems to be some argument that this isn't the purview of the intelligence committee. if it is not, is it the purview of foreign relations? you know, is that semantic matter here? >> that is one of the key legal questions being fought over now between democrats on the house intelligence committee and the director of national intelligence and their legal guidance from the justice department. again, i mean, what types of notes and transcripts, our story doesn't go into detail what types of notes there may or may not be, but deciding whether or not there's an intelligence activity involved here is one of

the key issues of dispute and why the director of national intelligence decided i needed to consult the justice department on this, so now the director of national intelligence has his hands tied becausesq he is bein told you can't share it with congress, even though they're threatening to sue him. >> i will let you go. thanks for taking a minute or two to explain what you found here. shall apprecia much appreciate it. joining us, kelly o'donnell. state dinner day is busy even without news. war and peace is on the line with iran. we have this breaking story. is the white house extra scrambly with the ukraine story? is there a different vibe there or is this just sort of the typical organized circus that is the trump era sometimes? >> reporter: there's certainly a clash of moods because there's all of the pageantry and getting ready for pomp and ceremony of a

state visit day, all of the tension are reporting out a story like this that has potentially very enormous consequences for the white house. we have tried to get any kind of additional clarification from white house officials. we've been given no comment repeatedly, talked to multiple officials that will not engage on this issue beyond what the president himself has said. broadly, chuck, i think one thing that might be helpful for viewers is to understand when calls like this happen between president trump and another world leader, what is unclear to us now from talking to multiple officials about what kind of notes exist. so when we use the word transcript, viewers may think there's a recording and every word is transcribed. often there are note takers, it may be someone writing down the substance of what's discussed, may not be word for word. if someone later looks at the

material, it may not give us every nuance of what the conversation included. certainly topic areas and so forth. we don't know in the july 25th phone conversation what the specifics were. was there any kind of recording, was it simply note taking. we don't know the specifics. that may ultimately become important, certainly for a world leader, those are classified. that would be part of the reason why the administration wants to keep this under wraps. big questions here. the president called out this whistleblower, declaring the person partisan, though doesn't know the identity, called out on reporters to investigate joe biden, seeming to reinforce the story line that is playing out separately about what may be in the complaint, so he seems content to have people pursue that, even though it might be in fact part of what the controversy around him ultimately continues to add oxygen to that, yet the president would not acknowledge

that he actually talked about biden, if in fact he did, he would not address that when pressed by reporters in the oval office. >> look, there's something here that can be trumpy sometimes. does he know exactly what's in transcripts? he knows he is not in jeopardy, he is toying? is he nervous about he doesn't know what he said maybe or is he bluffing through it. >> reporter: it is a question. >> it is an unknowable. you and i have seen him so long, what do you sense he is doing, he knows what he said or is trying to bluff out of what he said? >> reporter: certainly if he talked about the bidens, people will think that's inappropriate because joe biden and any member of the biden family, that could be viewed as using his office to seek information on a political rival and people will certainly critique that.

if he did not discuss or in any way hold over the ukrainian president military aid authorized by congress for the ukraine, if he knows he didn't discuss that, again, i am in the speculation area here, maybe he thinks that's a safe base. so we don't know. but the president kind of set up a strong man force saying build it up, build it up, build it up. that's what he was chiding reporters, so there would be a greater fall. we saw that during the russian investigation. it is hard to know. but the president definitely was trying to be dismissive about this today. >> right. >> reporter: and we have some road to cover before we know all of the answers on this. >> and the wildcard now, somehow rudy giuliani in all of this. >> reporter: chuck, isn't it hard to imagine touching the hot stove of a political leader, hard to imagine touching the hot stove again. >> you would think they would -- then again, maybe they thought they were in the clear.

anyway. kelly o'donnell, thanks very much. the whole episode raised a ton of legal question. julian epstein is a former democratic chief counsel, went through impeachment wars of the late '90s. robert lit, former general counsel for the director of national intelligence. basically, there's nobody like bob litz. i was told book him again. julian, bob, yquestion for you both. bob, start with you. how does new reporting change the brewing legal battle here where it seems as if there's a line here, the white house is trying to argue that sure, there may have been political conversations in there, not connected to the aid. does this change anything? >> the first thing you have to say is the point you made earlier, that we don't know if the conversation that "the wall street journal is reporting is the only conversation that took place. given the fact that initial

reporting specifically referred to a promise by the president, and that there was reference to more than one conversation, there may be more. the fact is we're seeing only small portions of the story, and until we see it all, we're not really going to know what the implications are. having said that, as you pointed out, the mere fact of the president asking a foreign government to intervene and try to dig up dirt on what he views as his primary opponent for the presidential election is something that i think people could view as extremely troubling. if i can go back a second to the question you asked dustin where the transcript would be, any of that is controlled by the white house. those are people that determine whether they're released. >> becomes a privilege issue. julian, this is in your wheel house here.

what do you think, what is congress' legal standing in this, what would your advice be to whether it is adam schiff at this point or if it is not in his jurisdiction, is it somebody else? how would you legally try to get hands on notes, transcripts, whatever you wan t to call it? >> there are two legal issues. one is whether congress has the right to the whistleblower information, whether the whistleblower is in fact covered by whistleblower laws. i think a relatively straight reading of the law is affirmative on both. the whistleblower is covered. i think regardless of the alleged executive privilege issues, given the context. congress clearly has the right to the information. that's the first issue. second issue, is there a legal issue with respect to trump asking and using foreign aid to ask a government to interfere in the 2020 elections, parenthetically, while denying he asked a foreign government to

interfere in the 2016 elections. so i think the question that you're asking is where is this story going. i think it hangs a lantern on a real systemic problem we have in terms of holding the executive accountable. the game the white house is playing now is yeah, we are going to thumb our nose at the law. we kind of recognize that the whistleblower is covered. we recognize congress has the right to the information. and even if there's a legal issue with respect to interference, what are you going to do about it? you can try to go impeachment, we know your caucus is divided, or try to go to the courts. if you go to courts to litigate access to the information, it could take one to two to three years. the enforcement process is so slow and so outdated, and so in need of updating. i think the best way to do this, if i were the judiciary committee or if i were at the

intelligence committee, i would -- and i think the identity of the whistleblower will be known, i would get the whistleblower and subpoena the whistleblower and try to get the whistleblower to the hill. they'll try to block him on executive privilege, but i think the whistleblower's attorney will find plenty of cover. i would try to hear directly from the whistleblower. >> in case people say he or she, whistleblower, none of us know if the whistleblower is he or she. i don't want anybody to read into he or she. >> i stand corrected. >> we don't know. fair point. >> bob litt, we talked about this yesterday. what advice at some point do you give the whistleblower? somebody pointed out to me that this whistleblower is doing what a lot of people wanted edward snowden to do, work within the system, see if you can get the system to hear the alarm you're trying to sound. he decided not to do that.

at what point do you think the whistleblower may find they have no other choice but to go around the system? >> that's going to depend on the whistleblower's tolerance for risk. we know that the executive branch is taking position that the whistleblower can't disclose this. and i think that president trump's comment today that the whistleblower was a partisan is an extremely dangerous comment because the most important thing for any whistleblower is to understand that they're going to be protected from reprisal, retaliation. if the president of the united states without knowing anything about the whistleblower characterizes this person as partisan, he is signaling go on the attack against this whistleblower. if this person comes forward, start attacking them as a d disloyal person. that's something the whistleblower has to bear in mind, the personal risk he or she will be taking when deciding whether to come forward.

>> and if i can underscore a point, i think mr. litt is exactly right. this is hanging a lantern on a problem that everybody should be worried about and focused on, which is there is no easy enforcement mechanism when you find a president asking a foreign government to interfere in an election, there is no easy enforcement mechanism on that, no easy enforcement mechanism with a whistleblower on a case like this. legal processes are so outdated. every single democratic candidate should be talking about reforming the accountability process, having in place a process to go to the courts, get disposition on these in weeks rather than years. this should be a central focus of reform for every single democratic candidate because the question you're asking is the right question. is there a clear route for the democrats to hold the president accountable, the game the white house is playing is that there isn't. we can kick the can down the road, string it out for months

if not years. >> bob litt, is there risk in the white house strategy that there is a fast track? are we going to a nixon tape showdown, is it going to be three years, what julian was saying, one to two to three years, or is there a way it is fast tracked? >> julian is right. if it goes to the courts, it will take a long time before it gets resolved. i think the risk for the white house is either that the information leaks out or that the whistleblower decides to come forward, and at that point they lose control, lose the ability to stall things interminably. that's when we may find out what this is all about. >> thank you both for sharing your expertise with us. >> thanks for having us. joining me, kimberly atkinson, washington correspondent and michael steele, doug parnell.

kimberly, the basic question that the average viewer is thinking here, is this just another more of the washington fight over the legitimacy of donald trump, right? this is more of the same fight? or is this different? >> this is different. it is really important. i think one thing that to your point with so much stuff, it feels like the bar is getting lowered and lowered on what is acceptable and what is not. these are really extremely serious allegations, if the president tried to influence a foreign government to do something to interfere with the election, that's a very serious accusation. >> we say it as if, rudy giuliani said he had these conversations. >> that's what i mean. >> they've already done this. >> the messaging is this is fine. the president can do this. that's where you have to be clear. even the national security folks i was texting with furiously in

the last half hour, even the idea as to whether there was a quid for the quo, doesn't matter. clearly, the president of the united states is talking to this leader, there's implicit quo to that. we saw this president invite foreign governments to interfere with the election, give information. it is a big deal. >> michael steele, this is the part that we have -- the executive producer said she wanted to say we should start a segment, this is not normal. >> right. >> this is not just not normal, it is unamerican, it is however you define it. nixon, watergate was domestic on domestic. >> right. nixon also had a functional sense of shame. and respect for norms to the extent when pushed far enough, he eventually resigned. this white house believes the only response to this investigation and scrutiny is to go on the attack. you hear where they're going.

fake news, won't investigation swamp man joe. so of course he will ask the ukrainians to look into shady deals. why wouldn't he. if the corrupt fake media would look into this stuff, i wouldn't have to. >> how does the republican party, the one that you worked for for so long, believe the american president should seek guidance of a law enforcement official from ukraine rather than the federal bureau of investigation? >> i think that there are a lot of people that are going to have private reservations about this. i think there is no indication unless we learn more, unless things come out, tapes, whatever, there's no indication that republican voters are going to turn on the president over this. until opposition among elected leaders is effectual, you're not going to see much change. >> doug, what's interesting, nancy pelosi in her ways of holding off impeachment, one of her favorites phrases, he is going to self impeach.

and i remember at the time people were mocking it. but the time line of this is fascinating, literally. mueller testifies i think the 24th, and is it the next day perhaps that he has the phone call? almost like free and clear. now i can keep doing it. i am being a little facetious, but it is that time line. does it add pressure to nancy pelosi? there's a sense of what do you do now. julian makes an important point, someone has to stand up for congressional authority. >> julian is very smart. next week, the dni is coming to congress. my understanding is democrats will demand that report. if they don't get it, they have to figure out what the next move is. i think that the president and his team is probably a bit embolden, but this should not be a surprise to anyone. he called on russia during the 2016 election to investigate, to find hillary clinton's emails. there was a meeting at trump

tower with a russian intelligence person. this is not out of character for the president. i think what democrats need to realize is this is a complicated issue, and in order for it to leave an impression on a voter, you need to make it simple. this is a corrupt president who is abusing his power for his own interests, trying to take down the democratic candidate he is scared of most. >> i want to play the rudy giuliani sound from last night. another angle i want to take on rudy. this is a pattern, you can tell the white house staff wants to be in one place, and somehow old rudy and don seem to have an idea on themselves. for some reason last night, rudy giuliani went on cnn. here's the excerpt. >> did the president talk to the ukrainian president about what he wanted done with joe biden and with paul manafort?

>> i have no idea. i never asked him that. i don't know if he did. i wouldn't care if he did. he had every right to do it as president of the united states. he had every right to say to the ukrainian president we have two outstanding allegations of massive corruption. >> did he ask you to do it? >> kimberly. i want to remind people, it was rudy giuliani that went on a sean hannity interview and said no, he wrote the checks. he reimbursed cohen. and the great moment, he did. hannity like lost it. it is clear it is some weird, trump and guilliani have a phone call, he says little me finish the cigar, let me call up chris and go on. >> guilliani's explanation was a cross between nixon and oj. >> by the way, completely won over the entire staff today. >> on one hand, if the president does it, it is fine. if he did it, this is why he

would have done it, but not saying that he did it. it is nonsensical but adds to the point we're talking to before, it is this desire to make it seem normal, seem completely within the purview of the american president, that the american president is doing it on behalf of the country, and that it is good and not completely wrong. >> this is a republican senator from missouri. this is his response to the allegations. >> i'm not sure what the actual facts are, maybe we'll find out over time. looks like another deep state attack, another bureaucratic attack on the president. we have seen this over and over and over in this administration from anonymous sources deep inside the bureaucracy. it has been an unprecedented attempt by the bureaucracy to resist the policies of a duly elected president of the united states. we'll see what the facts actually are on this over time, but so far i have to say i'm not

impressed. >> you're never going to see the attacks stop. the left is not going to give up because they cannot even accept the fact that they lost. >> michael, it was just like whatever the trump base says, i'm in. >> right. they're trying to pull the president's teflon over themselves and stick with his story, his version of reality and events. >> both those folks won in 2018 in places that -- >> supporters of the president. >> i notice you didn't see, it is not like we have republican senators from swing states coming here, defending the president, they were hard to find today. >> and there's no question that people since the beginning of the campaign in 2016, the people who are most alarmed about president trump are people with the greatest responsibility about protecting this country and national security. he has no regard for the foreign policy establishment, no regard for conventional wisdom when it comes to security, and that genuinely frightens people. that's why you see information that comes out specifically on these issues more often than

others. >> doug, if you advise a democratic presidential campaign, most of them stayed out of it, biden has been asked, but they've all expressed some outrage, this is who he is. but i get the instinct of i got to let that play out, stay out of it. >> especially most of them are in iowa this weekend for the steak fry. their view is that most of the stuff is baked into the profile of the president, we need to be talking about kitchen table issues. but look, the frustration that a lot of democrats and progressives feel, you had guilliani admit to code red like on "a few good men." god damn right i did it. if the jury said go on your way, we're not doing anything, that's the frustration progressives feel. i get the rock and hard place that nancy pelosi is in. if he is impeached, mitch

mcconnell and people are going to let him go. >> never going to do it. we're going to pause, sneak in a break. you have to stick around. i will be right back. have to std i will be right back ♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ you've i like working.areer. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪ "have you lost weight?" of course i have-

ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

idle equipment costs you time and money. that's why united rentals is combining equipment, data, safety, and expertise to help your worksite perform better. united rentals. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms.

it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. welcome back in tonight's 2020 spread the news. bill de blasio is leaving today. new york city mayor is out of the race for president.

some of us didn't know. his campaign never gained a lot of traction, polling near the bottom of the field. this week registered zero in a poll released next week on the presidential race, not good. let's turn from 2020 vision to what we call 2019 vision, weeks before election day in canada. the prime minister there, justin trudeau, apologizing for a third straight day after a third photo surfaced of the canadian prime minister wearing brown or blackface, a student in the '90s or as a teacher in the 2000s. and trudeau could not confirm there wouldn't be a fourth. >> this is an incident for which i am deeply sorry. i have apologized to canadians. >> the campaign is expecting more photos to come out, will you confirm that? >> i have nothing to confirm on that. >> so there could be more? >> i have nothing to confirm on

that. >> the political analysts aren't ready to predict the pictures will cost him victory october 31st, their economy is going well, a race he was expected to win. they say it will cost him public image, internationally as a champion of racial tolerance. he was facing scrutiny over an allegation made by the former attorney general saying he improperly pressured her to stop prosecuting an engineering firm, said he was just protecting canadian jobs. going to be a tough couple weeks for him. back with more "mtp daily" and more on the president and ukraine after this. re on the pr ukraine after this you see, one out of six vehicles have been recalled because of dangerous takata airbags. one of them could be yours. defective airbag parts can explode causing serious injury, even death. go to safeairbags.com and see if your vehicle is on the recall list. and if it is, get it fixed for free.

it could save your life. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

-[ scoffs ] if you say so. ♪ -i'm sorry? -what teach here isn't telling you is that snapshot rewards safe drivers with discounts on car insurance. -what? ♪ -or maybe he didn't know. ♪ [ chuckles ] i'm done with this class. -you're not even enrolled in this class. -i know. i'm supposed to be in ceramics. do you know -- -room 303. -oh. thank you. -yeah. -good luck, everybody.

welcome back. we have been saying "the wall street journal" and "the washington post" and moments ago "new york times" are all reporting that president trump did pressure ukraine's president to investigate joe biden's son on a july phone call. the journal report claims trump mentioned it about eight times, not about, eight times they said in a phone call. president trump reiterated the argument his personal lawyer

made, it doesn't matter if he discussed a political rival with a foreign leader. this is ahead of trump's one-on-one meeting scheduled with the ukraine president next week at the united nations general assembly. it is september. it is what we affectionately refer to at unga week next week. you know general assembly in case you hear that. to put it in context, michael mcfall, served as ambassador to russia, kimberly, michael, doug are also back. mike, let me start straightforward here with, want to see if you can clear up something kelly o'donnell was mentioning, foreign leader phone call transcripts and recordings, controlled by the white house. are they recordings? are these notes? are these full transcripts? or could it be any of the three? >> well, i don't know how the trump administration operates, i want to underscore that. >> of course. >> maybe they do things

differently. but when i worked at the white house, participated on these phone calls with foreign leaders, when they were phone calls from the oval office, they were recorded and there were transcripts. and then the transcripts were made available by the white house situation room to a very small number of very senior people, almost all of them who worked at the white house, not only, but it was a close hold who got to look at those transcripts. >> and an intelligence analyst at dni, it was described to me, most likely way the person would see it, they were detailed to national security council, this is probably somebody working at the white house, detailed to another agency. and that they would be the ones that would have been perhaps reading this or putting it together, putting it in context? >> that could be. that's a plausible hypothesis, that's right. there are lots of detailees at

the national security council. only the senior people are political appointees, i was a political appointee. but all the people that worked for me, i worked in russia, your asia director, all those were detailed from other places, state department, cia. but that's a possibility. obviously i don't know the facts. >> let's bring it to ukraine here. the irony here is this all sort of seemed to play, it is all seeming to play into foreign policy goals of vladimir putin, meaning delayed aid, infighting in ukraine, infighting in the united states over whether we should offer aid to ukraine, and if we do, do it as a quid pro quo, if we do, i mean, i could go on and on. put it in context as you understand it here and how this fits in the sort of larger geopolitical goals of vladimir putin. >> well, they serve vladimir putin's goals of course in a

number of ways. number one, withdrawing and holding military assistance designed to deter russia from attacking and further attacking ukraine, that's in putin's national interest. but number two, and this is much more important, the president of the united states says well, it doesn't matter. actually, it does matter because it makes our president sound like he is not acting in the american national interest. but he is acting in his own personal interest. and that undermines the integrity and reputation the president of the united states and our country. that's the kind of behavior that we used to lecture countries like ukraine and russia not to do. to have our president do it, it jun undermines american national interest more broadly than just the specifics about ukraine. >> i want to get to a specific incident that the trump world is trying to use to frankly sort of muddy up the situation, and it has to do with a video

circulating, i am not playing it here because i think -- i don't think it is going to be done in context, i am trying to offer the context first, but the vice president was in a conversation at the council on foreign relations, talking about how he did tell the ukrainian government we're going to not do this aid if you don't deal with this investigation, you don't fire this investigator. now, he was representing u.s. national interests, obviously they're trying to create the picture that biden was somehow worrying about his own son. i know you've seen this video. how concerned are you about it being exploited, number one, and number two, give us some context here that you think we may be missing. >> it's a complete distortion of the facts and it is complicated, so bear with me. first of all, the person he was talking about that needed to be removed was not investigating corruption. that's why the united states

government wanted him removed, that's why other western european leaders wanted him removed, that's why the imf wanted him to be removed. the vice president was just delivering talking points that were in general agreement well beyond the vice president. and i worked with the vice president. let's just be clear, he was going to ukraine to advance obama administration policy, and that was a very clear statement at the time. everybody thought that guy was corrupt and not fighting corruption. so that's the first piece. but there's a second piece that is important that gets conflated and mr. guilliani conflated it last night. it is one thing to investigate corruption, and ukrainians should be the ashtrayorbitrator what to investigate, who are we to tell them what to do, but the piece of collusion that he keeps bringing up, saying it is all intertwined and it is not. the information about

mr. manafort that the ukrainians themselves found out was done by elected officials in ukraine. they uncovered corruption and exposed it to the world. that has nothing to do with the other story that mr. guilliani keeps linking to the son of the vice president. they're completely separate things, and they need to be separated as we talk about them further. >> all right. you brought some expertise, trying to explain it. doug, give advice to joe biden. how does he prevent this from being gas lit, prevent supporters from -- the video without context can mislead people. >> well, look, for one, largest english language paper in kiev has already said this is a bogus story. "the washington post" and a whole bunch of other outlets said it is a conspiracy theory, it is bogus. >> that will not convince the president.

>> no, it is not. something they should hit on. you pivot back to the president again abusing his power for his own self interest. you can't spend a lot of time defending nonsense. i don't think his supporters should as well. they should make the point this is bogus and raise the question as to why is the president using government resources, that's what this is, looks like he is trying to extort ukraine to investigate his biggest opponent, the one he fears most, which is joe biden. >> isn't this a sign of weakness for trump, how much he is risking of his own presidency to use his powers to beat up biden? >> sure. it is also the only strategy available to him. we talked about this before. >> he had other strategies. >> but from day one, he has gone to his base, rather than broaden the coalition, every single day he trades between the upper 30s and mid 40s in the polls. he will never get above 50%.

his only option is to make the democratic alternative illegitimate, do to the next nominee largely what he did to secretary clinton. it is a great effective awful, horrible strategy that he is going to take advantage of. >> and remember, chuck, this week we had a series of polls showed the president losing to joe biden 10, 12 points, losing to other democrats, too. >> still the strongest candidate in the polls. >> kimberly, i can't pretend to figure out how does it impact his primary campaign. rivals may whisper, say this is what will bog down a joe biden candidacy. >> i'm not sure the other candidates have to hit him that much because it is involving him, it will be hard for him to address. these are issues, national security and things like that, these are issues that are not what's driving the democratic base, so the candidates don't want to talk about this, they don't want to talk too much about trump, they want to talk

about policies that they're hearing that are polling well, and this is directly opposite of that. >> goes straight to the middle class persona and undercuts it. >> mike mcfaul, the president is meeting with him next week. what do you do? he is between a rock and hard place i feel like as far as right now, can't afford to alienate a future president, can't afford to alienate this president. >> well, it is difficult. i think it is up to the trump administration. they could clean it up by having a good meeting, reaffirming support for the ukrainian government. and remember, chuck, this is a pivotal moment in ukrainian history. they elected this brand new president, brand new parliament. this is their moment to break through. >> what do you make of zelinski. >> i don't know him personally, i know people that worked for

him and joined his government. he has a 70% approval rating, claims he is going to move ya z ukraine in the right market oriented direction. it is our job to help him succeed. what's tragic about this, we have been for 20 years, me personally, too, spent a lot of time working on ukraine, lecturing them about get out of the swamp, stop with the corrupt stuff, and here we have the president of the united states basically engaging with him in exactly the kind of behavior that we don't want them to do. i hope they'll take the opportunity next week to clean it up and move this in a much better direction. >> i hear you. what does he do, his choice seems to be putin or trump. >> well, he has to play the long game, and at the end of the day this is a long game, whether ukraine joins the west and the democratic community of states or not. he has made his vote.

it is clear what zell in ski wants. that will be a process that happens over years and decades, well after president trump is gone. he needs to make that argument. >> there was an unconfirmed report that boy, if the president start the investigation. do you believe that among this investigation in kiev? >> i certainly hope not. i don't believe it. these are a different group of people. there's nothing to the story. i want to emphasize one of your other guests said they have real journalists in ukraine. they have investigated this and found nothing. let's not say -- even by saying re-open the investigation, they looked at it, there's nothing there. it's time for people to return to facts and move on. >> mike mcfall out there at stanford. i know that saturdays are not as fun as they have been in the past. >> i knew you were going to talk about that. >> i had to. >> it's going to be a tough

challenge. >> thank you. at least you'll have beautiful weather for it. thank you. when we come back, nbc chief foreign correspondent will join us. chief foreign corrpoesndent will join us i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. it's just the way things are.

when you're under pressure to get the job done, it seems you have to accept the fact that some equipment will sit idle, or underutilized. but it doesn't have to be that way. that's why united rentals is combining equipment, data, safety and expertise to help your worksite perform better. united rentals. a better worksite is here. i'm not really a, i thought wall street guy.ns. what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st.

hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade

welcome back. today the pentagon was expected to present president trump with range of military options against iran less than a week after an attack on saudi arabia's oil industry. an attack the white house has blamed on iran.

the president target's iran's economy today with more sanctions against iran's national bank. he also warned he is prepared for us to use military force if he decides it's necessary. >> i don't want to talk about that. i will say i think the sanctions work and the military would work. that's a very severe form of winning, but we win. nobody can beat us milltarially. nobody can come close. >> with us is richard engel. you're doing a special on isis. in some ways i think we wish we had an isis problem right now when we see what could happen with iran. i'm not wishing it. explain to the public what -- why it's hard to imagine there's such thing as a surgical iranian strike the way we saw with

syria. >> i still think we have an isis problem and we'll talk about that in a second. the idea there could be a quick surgical strike with iran, that it will one and done and the iran problem will go away is a total fallacy. iran is a sophisticated country but in an all out war, the u.s. would win. it will be a fight through proxy. it will be a fight probably not in iran. iran would confront the united states outside of its borders. it would use allied malitias in iraq targeting the u.s. embassies there. it could use its malitias in syria. it could target u.s. forces there. perhaps even indirectly. hiding its hand. it could target u.s. forces in hafrg which is right on iran's

border. it would be a low level, very complicated campaign that iran would contact hiding its hand and carried out in other countries. it would be protracted. it would be confusing. et would be de it would be deniable. it would be no one and done and we're moving onto something else. >> iran is supposed to be an ally in the fight against isis ar ally might be strong of a word but in some ways they are. i'm not going ask you to fit both stories together in this. it is sort of a reminder of just how complicated the whole thing is in the middle east right now. >> iran has been an ally with the united states in fighting extremism. iran helped the united states after 9/11. did not want to see the taliban

stay in power but iran has also tried to have it both ways to a degree. not to conflate the two stories but iran's position on isis has been fairly clear. it does not want to see isis come back. it does not want to see isis thrive which brings us to the isis issue which we're going to be talking about on sunday night for an hour. the u.s. with the kurdish force the dpeet defeated the caliphat. there are still tens of thousands of isis members, fighters, family members, people who are ideologically committed to the cause. there's as many as 18,000 isis

members still at large f. there are camps in syria where isis supporters have been herded together. they are loosely guarded and the people are sitting around with nothing to do. still committed to the cause and they are a ticking time bomb. >> do they have no country to go to? their home countries have rejected them in some cases? >> one of the camps we spent a lot of time in in northern syria. about 70,000 people there. some of them local nationals. say locals would be people from iraq and syria who came to join isis from the neighboring countries. they were kind of brought into the islamic state because they were there. then there are the foreign fighters who came from europe or other more distant arab world countries to join isis. those countries don't want them back. france, germany, people came from the caribbean, don't bring

them back. this isn't a solution to the problem. they are just leaving this emei the desert hoping they will go away and they're not. >> i apologize this is a shorter segment than i wanted to do. >> lot to talk about. >> trump administration does that to me most days and most sundays. thank you. be sure to catch richard's outstanding special. it's on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. if it's sunday, it's meet the press on nbc. here we go, iran and the whist whistleblower. the beat with ari melber. >> we begin on this friday night with breaking news. donald trump busted on on his claim that he would take foreign help in 2020. it's a friday night but it is a trump white house kind of friday night and they are under fire from all sides for