zblmp all right. we're now about a minute away from nancy pelosi ee's meeting h the democratic caucus. on your screen the current count of democrats calling for impeachment action. 175 out of 235. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. breaking news from capitol hill. nbc news is reporting that one hour from now, house speaker nancy pelosi will announce a im donald trump. the move toward impeachment is a dramatic one for speaker pelosi who was unmoved by the mueller report, but who has taken this extraordinary step in the wake of a whistle-blower complaint regarding the president's conduct with the leader of ukraine and his demand that a foreign government investigate the biden family for the express purpose of dirtying up a

potential political rival. donald trump's conduct has been revealed in waves of new reporting and stunning admissions from the president, himself, over the last several days. twin developments last night, though, seemed to break the dam of opposition from pelosi. a report in the "washington post" that trump ordered a hold on military aid to ukraine just days before a call in which he pressed for an investigation into the bidens as well as the voices of seven freshmen democrats with national security backgrounds who described trump's conduct as impeachable. their calls seemed to usher in a wave of new support for impeachment proceedings. the number of democrats who support impeachment stands at 175. that's out of the 218 that would be needed to impeach the president. for his part, donald trump this afternoon announced that he would release the complete fully declassified and unredacted transcript of the call in question with the ukrainian president. that concession coming after the

president, this morning, confirmed those press accounts that he ordered a halt to military aid to ukraine. and all of this has house intel chairman adam schiff says this afternoon that the whistle-blower who first brought trump's conduct to light through a secret complaint now wants to speak to congress. and all of this leads us to wonder, is the president's political invincibility finally run its course and is his impeachment in the house now unavoidable? those questions are where we start today with our favorite reporters and friends. on capitol hill, nbc news correspondent heidi przybyla, jonathan lemire, white house reporter for the associated press. with us at the table, axios political reporter alexi mccammond. nbc and msnbc national affairs analyst john heilemann. former republican congressman, now an independent, david jolly. and former u.s. acting solicitor general, neal kathyal. heidi, you were among the first to break the news about speaker pelosi. take us through what you've learned and what you're reporting this hour.

>> reporter: right, nicolle. we learned speaker pelosi has decided later today after her meeting with the caucus which you see members entering now that about 5:00 today, she is going to make the announcement that she will launch a formal impeachment inquiry. now, what does that mean? it means that the committees which have already been investigating this president are hoping that under their legal theory, they will be able to have expedited access to documents, to witnesses, and expedited legal process here that has really been clogged up by this administration which has been stonewalling these investigations at every turn. now, it is this news over the ukraine pressure by the president that kind of broke the dam here. the speaker for weeks has been taking the temperature of her caucus about whether they wanted to do an informal impeachment inquiry. she said today she has been hesitant all along. that is accurate, but it did reach a tipping point today with

both members of leadership who are close allies of her coming forward like hakeem jeffries as well as overnight that list of seven freshmen democrats who are national security-minded democrats, a number of them, by the way, who come from strong trump districts, saying we just can't take this anymore, we're at a point where the president is now violating the constitution. he's violating his oath of office. and the dni, as we speak, as speaker pelosi said, is in violation of the law by not handing over that whistle-blower complaint to congress and to the relevant committees in congress. >> jonathan lemire, the president here in new york, you're covering him, you've been hazed by him this week, personally, we'll get to that in a little bit. but the president seeming to wake up to the reality that this may not be in his political interest to have his conduct asking the president of ukraine to help dirty up the bidens, to interfere in a u.s. election,

again, russia 2 preside.0 if yo. he announced this amp he'd release a transcript in question but no signs from the administration that they'll clear that whistle-blower complaint to make its way to congress. is that right? >> that is right, nicolle. for months now the white house has also embraced the idea of impeachment thinking it would be a political winner for them, thinking they could paint it as pure partisan overreach on behalf of the democrats, particularly as the calendar moves steadily toward next november in the election. they felt like they could really suggest that that's what this was about. it was about trying to get him out of office, not about upholding the constitution. this one does feel different. people around the president know this one seems to carry a little more significance. the president, himself, is insisting to aides that he did nothing wrong. that he believes that the focus shown on joe biden and those allegations of corruption. he believes the transcript will exonerate him. sources that i've talked to, people familiar with the contents of that call, say there is no quid pro quo, there's no exact deal suggesting like if

you dig -- where the president would say, we'll release this aid to you if you, indeed, launch this investigation into the bidens so they believe that they can still spin this as the democrats overreaching. you're right, there is no movement yet to release the full whistle-blower report and that complaint about the president's conduct with ukraine is beyond more than just the call. the people around the president i've talked in the last 24 hours or so recognize there's momentum here. things are moving very quickly on the democratic side toward impeachment. and now with the word that the whistle-blower wants to appear before congress, there's a level of gravity to this matter that we have not seen in a while. let's remember, this phone call with the ukrainian leader took place just one day after robert mueller's testimony in congress which at that moment, the special counsel's somewhat faltering testimony, the white house believed that that threat posed by the russia probe was over. the president clearly emboldened took that to the ukrainian leader and all comes against the backdrop, as a final point, here at the united nations. the president's speech this morning largely overshadowed.

tomorrow, he meets with the ukrainian leader, the media, myself included, in the press pool, will see that. the president tomorrow also will have a news conference in which he'll be certain to address all the happenings, wild happenings over the last 24 hours. >> actually it's probably a known unknown what the president will do to distract from this. i think jonathan makes a really good point. i think of the president in terms of steamrolling norms, kid at the top of the hill pushing boulders down and start rolling faster and faster out of their control. he's now got one rolling down the hill that may actually crush his presidency. he may have actually crossed a line that he can't uncross. >> yeah, this isn't just like him pushing a couple boulders. this is him kicking a huge stone down the mountain. the idea that the president is going to say to a foreign government, whether there's a quid pro quo or not, go get dirt on my opponent? >> don't brush over that. isn't asking a foreign leader to dirty up your opponent the crime in and of itself? >> exactly.

>> why are we waiting -- >> it's not just a crime, it's also impeachable. his defense is, like you saying, i only murdered half the guests at my show. okay, yeah, you could have murdered them all but done half and that's a pretty horrible thing. here, the idea that a president can go and outsource his campaign work to some foreign government, to some foreign country, not just is that, like, totally antithetical to what a president should do, it also opens it up to blackmail. >> right. >> now the other country knows it has the other information about him, nobody else does, this is not the way a president of the united states can behave. >> a former justice department official made that point exactly, if you go back to the predicate for firing mike flynn, it was because he could be blackmailed by the russians. if you go back and look at some of the original fbi investigations into donald trump's ties to russia and his lies and michael cohen's lies about moscow, that the trump tower moscow, it was about the russians knowing more than the americans. it was about the ability to leverage something over him. it would seem that some of the sort of credibility of the whistle-blower complaint was in letting the intelligence

community know what a foreign government might have on donald trump. >> exactly. that's why this whistle-blower law, which was enacted in 1989 then in 2010, 2014, is so significant. it doesn't say, oh, you got to turn over the transcript of the call. it says you got to turn over the whistle-blower report whenever the president -- whenever the inspector general, who by the way, is a trump appointee, says there's a serious, urgent concern, and that's what was found here. >> you and i have been merciless on nancy pelosi for looking at the case out of sdni where donald trump was an indutiy ein co-conspirator. >> right. >> the mueller report, ten acts of obstruction of justice. she's moving pretty quickly in this case. >> she. whatever disagreements we may have over her leadership style, we anticipate at 5:00 today we are going to hear that she is engaging in bold leadership and moving forward with impeachment, which could lead to the impeachment of the third president in the history of the united states, the fourth if you include nixon's resignation. but i think what we need from

nancy pelosi and house democrats is clarity around this because what the white house is going to say is there was no crime. and they may be correct, that there was no crime, but if we can talk very briefly about the history of impeachment, it is a abuse of power. when the framers wrote the language around impeachment, they -- they specifically wanted to reach abuse of power when there was not an underlying crime. there were three architects of the impeachment language, if you will. james madison, george mason, and edmond randolph. and they were each concerned that the president may one day engage in activity that was not criminal but was impeachable. madison was concerned about a president who would engage in perfidy, deceit, untrustworthiness. madison was worried about a president who would be disloyal to our nation in dealing with a foreign nation. ukraine. randolph was concerned about a

president who would secure emoluments from the office, profit from the presidency. mason was concerned about someone who would tamper with elections or electors. he was concerned about a president who would tamper with investigations into himself. this is the presidency that the authors and architects of the impeachment language feared. this was the presidency they were worried about. and the frustration, i think, among a lot of activists who have asked nancy pelosi to do more is that this isn't that hard. >> yeah. >> it's right there. even on this issue, whether we get the transcript or the whistle-blower report, donald trump has confessed to this in the last 72 hours. >> right. >> on james comey, he confessed to lester holt, he fired him because of russia. >> right. >> giuliani has confessed to this. mcgahn and lewandowski have confessed and said to mueller that they were instructed to have mueller fired, or they said to mueller they were instructed to have special counsel fired. cohen confessed to a criminal conspiracy around campaign

finance. >> right. >> and so the house has what it needs right now. what -- what a number of frustrated americans have felt is we have not seen the urgency yet from house leadership, and i think we are going to see that at 5:00. the question is, will it be wrapped in any unnecessary procedures? or will it embrace the clarity of the moment that we're there? will we see house democrats step forward and grab this -- this flag that is falling toward a muddied white house floor. >> yeah. >> and say we are going to grab that flag and secure it and protect it for the guardians of democracy that will come after us. so that our nation is stronger, not weaker, based upon what the house democrats decide to do in this meeting right now. >> so i feel like here we have high -- >> the ghost of steve schmidt. >> the body of david jolly. good to see you there, steve. >> the high/low. i mean, can we also break it down, donald trump tried to abuse his power, a lot of other times. that's basically the thread that runs through his entire presidency.

we know from the mueller report don mcgahn stopped him from prosecuting or investigating hillary clinton and james comey. it would seem that someone like mick mulvaney who the "washington post" report last night, which i assume your reporting is in line with what jonathan and heidi suggests that the sort of crush of reporting from the "post" and other outlets really did put nancy pelosi in the position she finds herself in today. but there's no one left to even meekly suggest that he not sort of take that final step toward abusing his power, committing the crime. >> i want to go to a new metaphor rather than boulders rolling down hills, i see impeachment was the body, the dead body coming out of -- as we head into this fall, impeachment was dead. donald trump is the guy with the defibrillator paddles who's now revived impeachment single handedly, having done this thing "x" number of months ago, without donald trump and the factors that led to donald trump

doing this thing the day after the mueller hearings, we would not be here, there would be no impeachment. it was dead. donald trump has himself to blame or the responsibility, blame, whatever you want to call it, rest rest s on his shoulde. people ask me why i'm looking at this ipad when i'm on the program. like to monitor the news. mitch mcconnell red lined a hot line to call for the whistle-blower report, chuck schumer is asking for unanimous conse consent. it's the most important thing in the world, i want to say this to everybody who covers this, i hear people all day long saying the transcript, the transcript. the transcript is not relevant. the president has tipped his hand all week long. you're going to see this transcript. if there was anything damaging -- >> it was a week ago. he admitted it already. >> the transcript isn't going to tell us anything. we've had people on this program and other places who have said that the relevant question is not what he said on the phone to president of ukraine, what -- you could have had all kinds of back channels, pompeo could have been conveying the quid pro quo,

other people could be having conversations that aren't on a line that's a hotline into the white house. we know there's nothing going to be anything incriminating in the transcript. that's what we must see, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer are on the same page, we must see the whistle-blower report. the whistle-blower report does not just focus on the phone call, it focuses on the phone call and a variety of other -- right now -- mysterious to us, behaviors that donald trump engaged in. we need to know the whole story, so if we get the whistle-blower report, we're quoigoing to get story. again, i come back to this point, donald trump, you talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. >> yeah. >> he is a master at this. he was in the clear. he was not going to get impeached. he was not going to have to deal with any of this. yet, you know, the one moment when he had himself, clear sailing, re-election wasn't going to be clear sailing but had clear sailing on this front, he's thrown himself back into it, having done this thing, the day after he looked up from

mueller, i can behave impunity, let's make a phone call. >> impeachment inquiry, this is why we need clarity from the house, must include investigations into pompeo, mulvaneyfurthered this abuse, it applies to all high officers of the land. i think pompeo and mulvaney and barr need to be included in whatever inquiry the house decides to pursue. >> it's a really good point, and where donald trump likes to throw around the pow oreer of t pardon, donald trump talks about his political invincibility with his base, people like mick mulvaney, you would have to hire lawyers, there is as much exposure for the people around donald trump who know what the whistle-blower alleges, were on this call, witnessed his conduct, as there is -- as there was for any witness in the mueller investigation. >> well, that's why as you just mentioned and you, too, john, impeachment inquiry is so important because democrats either have to go all the way or can't go at all. they know it doesn't just start

and stop with donald trump. president trump has created a culture from the top down that allows a sort of chaotic amoral behavior, unethical behavior, that others around him reflect in many different ways and all the folks that you just mentioned would like toyly have critical information to share and wouldn't do it otherwise at the direction of the president, himself, unless forced to because of an impeachment inquiry. things have moved really quickly. i was told from someone who talked with nancy pelosi last night that she is still saying i hate this politically, but it is inevitable and we have to move forward. and i think what is interesting for the democrats at this moment, to speak to nancy pelosi's concerns politically is that those democrats, those house democrats who wrote the op-ped last night all have a national security background. this gives the democrats an opportunity to paint a bigger picture, idea, of what the democratic party is. these national security-minded democrats and leaders for their country who will put country over party, and they can simply look at republicans and say, will you join us in doing that or will you not? >> can i say one quick thing which is i think we asked

ourselves for a long time, what will it take to change the democratic calculus and politics here? clearly nancy pelosi is doing what she always does, looking at she's mostly responsible, she thinks in her mind, for keeping control of the house of representatives. >> right. >> she's talking to vulnerable members, finding out how do the politics of this work for you? if it's still bad for you, i'm not doing it. now things have changed far lot of the vulnerable particularly freshmen in purple/red districts, particularly trump districts, they changed their mind. i tell you what it took, history will record it took, again, to go back to donald trump, it took at the highest level the specter of we're doing this again. >> yes. yeah. >> on the human level, the thing was he -- he called out russia, are you listening, in 2016, and was part of the process by which a foreign power intervened and screwed with the presidential election in 2016. he was doing it again. and at some level, everything else doesn't matter. at some point, even the most vulnerable house democrats looked at it and said, that is intolerable. we can't let this happen. let this guy do to us a second

time what he did to us in 2016. it must stop. no matter what the political consequences are. i think that is, we now have the answer, that's what it took. donald trump trying to pull the same lawless unethical, immoral thing a second time. >> and heidi, let me bring -- >> the same thing. >> let me bring heidi back into this because she's standing on capitol hill for us. heidi, i wanted to ask you how much of this, to john heilemann's point, is from a defensive posture, this daily drumbeat that congress is being made fools of, that their oversight function is being blocked by the stonewalling, almost reflexive stonewalling from the whouite house, with attorney general barr with the most expansive views on executive power in recent modern history, they're not going to get a document, they're not going to get a witness, the mueller report landed with a dud. how much of this was almost like a michael douglas, falling down, you know, enough is enough, we're not going to take it anymore, kind of psychological approach to this latest scandal -- >> reporter: i might add corey lewandowski to that, nicolle, i might add corey lewandowski to

that who thumbed his nose at congress and certainsent out fund-raising emails off of it. i do believe based on my conversations over the last couple weeks with senior democratic aides, there was a growing frustration with their inability to get anything done on oversight. documents being blocked. witnesses just refusing to come, invoking powers and privileges that, frankly, they don't have like corey who wasn't in the executive branch. so there was definitely a bubbling up of that, but absent this ukraine development, i still believe that we would not have seen this tipping point. it really was those national security democrats and to david's point about process, process is the question going forward. how they're going to structure this. whether they are going to create what's called a select committee, where the speaker would handpick committee chairs who would serve on a committee that would draw up a report, and then refer that to the judiciary committee, which is the only committee which can refer

articles of impeachment, which would bring in a whole other group of players and actually make it a pretty expansive probe because if their hand is strengthened in terms of legal proceedings, we could see the members of congress use that in several fronts. look, we've got a lot of investigations under way here including on emoluments, hush money payments, it's just a question of whether they want to make this a precision strike with this ukraine issue or how expansive they're going -- and long and dragged out this is going to be. we don't have answers at this hour, probably won't for at least another 24 hours or so, but these are the things that these members behind me are going to be discussing in this caucus. i imagine there will be some pretty spirited debates and strong opinions about how this should all be structured. >> jonathan lemire, i can't help but wonder if don mcgahn is, i'm sure he's not watching msnbc, but if he's thinking i'll go down as the guy that kept donald trump just on the other side of criminal obstruction of justice, and i don't know who his

successor is, maybe the guy that sees him get impeached. >> right. that's the lack of guardrails, nicolle. we keep coming back to that but it's just been a steady winnowing out of any figures in the white house or in the administration that can stand up to the president, tell him no, sir, i don't think you should do that, and try to keep him out of the self-inflicted harm. you know, we have seen cabinet secretaries come and go. any sort of powerful white house aides vanish. you know, are there a few, does steven miller have a say on certain issues? jared kushner, ivanka trump, occasionally on their stuff. there's no one in there including the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, who very much runs his own enterprise there, focused on his conservative issues and basically washed his hands of the president and says, look, i'm not going to try to restrain him, he will do what he sees fit, this is a losing proposition for me and him. you have a president with some consultation with his network of outside advisers but largely doing this on his own, on his gut, and feeling, yes, feeling

very much like he has suffered no consequences, no penalty, for what we saw in 2016 with russia and everything since. yet, did the republicans lose control of the house of representatives? they did. president doesn't really care about that. the president, to this point, has cared only about his own political future, but now as the democrats move toward impeachment, the house, which the democrats lost in 2018, largely because the president's behavior, suddenly may decide this president's political fate, and there's no expectation barring something really dramatic that he would be removed from office from the senate, the republican-controlled senate. the people that i talked to around the president, though they still think, they think that they can paint this as a political win, paint the democrats as overreaching, president, himself, is nervous. this is now the first line in his political obituary. he could be the third president impeached. and that is something that for someone who is very superstitious and worried about the future is not going to sit well with him and i think we should all be ready for how he's going to react. >> it's -- we know he won't react quietly or by himself or

in prayer or solitude. heidi przybyla, i know we're losing you to go do more reporting. congratulations, my friend, on your incredible reporting on this story. zip right back over to that camera location if you get anything else in the next 35 minutes. we're grateful to have you. after the break, excuses, excuses. the president shifting explanation on that now-infamous phone call with ukraine. and joe biden responds to the impeachment news from capitol hill. and the president's pledge to release the transcripts. stay with us. shrimp yeah!

red lobster's endless shrimp is back for just $15.99. get all the shrimp you want, any way you want 'em. like new sriracha-honey shrimp, savory grilled teriyaki shrimp, classic shrimp scampi and more! red lobster's endless shrimp is $15.99. hurry in. ♪ go where my baby lives b[ growl ]olle♪s good boy. hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

the conversation i had with

was largely congratulatory. was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place. the fact we don't want our people like vice president biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the ukraine. it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt? i put no pressure on them whatsoever. i could have. i think it probably would possibly have been okay if i did. but i didn't. i didn't put any pressure on them whatsoever. i did not make a statement that you have to do this or i'm not going to give you aid. i wouldn't do that. i wouldn't do that. i'll withhold, again, and continue to withhold until such time as europe and other nations contribute to ukraine. >> that was donald trump being the world's worst witness for himself. those were his responses over just three days to the "washington post" and "the wall street journal" and "the new york times" reporting on him basically ordering that aid to

ukraine be halted while he was peppering and requesting and badgering their leader to investigate the bidens. if impeachment is sort of a public and political way to adjudicate justice, where everything's out in the open, public opinion is a factor, hasn't donald trump just walked into the biggest trap of his life? >> yeah, i mean, he's a terrible, terrible, witness. and i guess the best legal precedent us legal scholars would draw for what trump has done over the last week, and forgive the sexist overtones, but drunk girl on "saturday night live," like i did it, didn't to do, i said it, i didn't, deep state, not deep state. it's completely -- >> with his sidekick, rudy. he did it, he did it. he meant to do it. i did it, too. i mean, how are those two -- i mean, it would seem that what didn't serve them well in the mueller probe, that it was so opaque, that it was so inaccessible. nancy pelosi never felt like the story had been told, never felt like she could take what was a

richly detailed story of deep ties to russia, criminal obstruction of justice, but it didn't happen in full view. this is donald trump and rudy giuliani bozo the clowning it all over. >> this is constitutional karma, this is coming back around to him because all the positions he's taken, all the things he's done over the last months and so, yes, i think absolutely, you know, he has himself to blame for it. >> also let's not forget that aides close to president trump encouraged him not to do an in-person interview with mueller for fear he'd perjure himself. he submitt eted written respons >> mueller still thought were lies. >> exactly. he couldn't even do it right in written responses. think that is exactly your point, he would be his own worst enemy sitting down and looks like he might hanot have a choi. >> to your point, all he had to do was not collude again. >> i think he's become this figure, i don't know if he's become or always been this way throughout his life, i think

he's always been this way throughout his life, someone who believes he's invincible. we talked about this, we all talked about this, after he got away with it after the mueller investigation, after the mueller report, after house democrats didn't do anything on that, he then realized as we've seen how much he could sort of abuse and use the power of the presidency, whether it's through executive orders to circumvent congress to get what he wants done or something like this. i was speaking to a democrat today who was so frustrated, he said, you know, donald trump said i could shoot at someone on 5th avenue and my reporters wouldn't care less, donald trump could shoot someone on 5th avenue and house democrats haven't done anything until perhaps 5:00 p.m. today. >> it's such a deep point when you talk about his invincibility. you know, i think john's right to say, well, it's he did it again, that's part of what's going on. it's deeper. it's this point about invincibility that, you know, americans, the constitution, is all about a president who believes in the rule of law, believes in checks and balances, who has some humility in the job. both of us got to work for different presidents who had that. he's got none of that. i think that's actually at the core of what this impeachment

decision today is about. >> shamelessness is shown even in his lack of a willingness to apologize for things when he has proven himself wrong. >> there are also two kinds of people in the world, two kinds of politicians, right? many politicians we know in both parties over time have done things that are wrong, you know, either intentionally or unintentionally made mistakes, whatever sometime an whatever. sometimes they got away with it. you say to yourself, there but for the grace of god go i. i'm never going to do that again. that was close. i could have gotten impeached. clean hands now. or you're the one who goes, i got away with it that time, let's go do it again. if you're donald trump who has no respect for the law, the institutions, the precedent, the histo history, duties of the job, all that stuff, that's the guy that says, hey, i got away with this, if i got away with it that time, i can get away with it again. it goes to invincibility, arrogance, just the sense that you are now unbridled. i want to say to point out one thing for breaking news, the case nancy pelosi is in the caucus meeting right now, jake

sherman has apparently a source in the room, pelosi has told democrats in the room they're moving to impeachment, that moment watching -- as we sit here speaking. >> wait, do we have jake sherman coming up? not yet. okay. >> let's hope. >> thank you. >> i do want to ask a practical question to neal because we all know, okay, we're here, let's go. >> right. >> the question is, what now happens? and, you know, the nixon precedent is once the proceedings began, and the country watched evidence that was unfurled before them, public opinion changed in a dramatic way. republicans, who had been all behind richard nixon, once the scales tipped and they saw nixon's popularity and the mounting weight of evidence get to a certain point, republicans suddenly abandoned the sinking shine and that was the end for richard nixon. so, if you're a democrat right now, we talk all the time about how a formal impeachment inquiry will allow democrats in the house to do things, to enter into evidence more facts. to get fact witnesses to speed the process that right now's kind of locked up in the courts

over subpoenas and other things. talk in a practical way about what new tools democrats have to get facts on the table if they have a formal impeachment inquiry now that they didn't have before. >> the formal answer to that in the law is you can get grand jury materials more easily when you is an impeachment proceeding. here, there's not necessarily a grand jury that's been convened so those prohibitions aren't necessarily at stake. here, there's something really different. this president has done something no president has done which is not give anything to congress effectively. privilege after privilege being asserted. even executive privilege over people who never worked in the white house, insane propositions like that. now, they can continue to keep on doing that. they could still even in a formal impeachment inquiry say we're not going to give you this, not going to tell you about ukraine, it's foreign policy, it's up to the president, so on. that would force the democrats to go to court. and then i do think, though, calling it impeachment does speed it up in the courts. >> right. puts pressure on the judges. >> exactly. >> that's their -- this -- this escalates things where a judge would normally take six months

to decide, might now decide it in expedited way. >> we have this precedent, the united states versus nixon, the nixon tapes case. >> right. >> nixon tried to stonewall and not turn over the tapes. the supreme court in a matter of 15 days basically heard the case, decided the case, forced the tapes to be turned over, and then the next day nixon resigned. >> so because when john heilemann talks, people listen, jake sherman's now on the phone. so, jake sherman, since we've come on the air, four more democrats have announced support for impeachment. the number now stands at i think 179. what are you hearing? john heilemann just reported you got a source in the room with some new information. >> yeah, i mean, at this point, it matters not much how many people are for it because everyone's going to be for it because nancy pelosi as now announced the house democrats are doing it. i'm standing just feet from the house democratic caucus meeting in the basement of the capitol where pelosi announced this. and adam schiff just minutes ago said it's gone from bad to worse to worse. and they're going to -- they're going to open impeachment

inqui inquiry. neblgs c next couple day, we've been hearing, the plan to be, the committees are going to submit kind of their best material from all their investigations to judiciary which is going to then turn around and package this into an impeachment package. and this is going to happen, we don't know how long this is going to last, obviously, could last months, could go much quicker, but the house democrats are there. i mean, they are doing this, and they're moving rapidly and it's worth noting, nicolle, we talked about this last week on air a bunch of times, but nancy pelosi was against this a week ago, and then the ukraine stuff came out. and the game has kind of been changed in a major, major way over the last couple days. >> jake, i was about to say that, you sat on our set monday and tuesday in d.c., maybe one of those days you were remote, and we did, we talked about this. we talked about nancy pelosi seeming intractability around impeachment. i wonder in your analysis, what is it about the ukrainian story?

john heilemann has a theory, it's the brazenness, occurred the day after mueller testified, i got away with it once, i'm going to try to get away with it again. a lot of law enforcement officials describe trump as acting like a mob boss. what is it about the ukraine story that changed nancy pelosi's calculation? >> yeah, i think it's twofold. i think it's that the president, we don't know -- again, we don't know exactly what happened, but if the reporting is right, the president had conversations with the ukrainian president about -- both about military aid and about investing domestic political rival. that's number one. number two, and perhaps most importantly, is the administration is blocking this whistle-blower report against the -- what is -- you know, there is precedent on both sides. congress is demanding this report and the president is not -- the administration is not giving it up. so both things are different, related, but both pique the interest of frontline, these kind of vulnerable democrats that nancy pelosi was shielding to protect and, again, nancy

pelosi said she was protecting these frontline democrats. now all of them are for an impeachment inquiry. >> yeah. >> there's no one to protect really and an important political environment. >> john heilemann has a question for you. >> jake, i heard you say this thing about judiciary taking the lead on this. i'm curious if you know any more about process on the basis of your reporting. is the judiciary going to be the committee of jurisdiction here or could there be a special committee? are the other committees that have any kind of piece of this going to continue to do investigations? like, how is this going to actually unfold? >> well, we understand is the committees that have pieces of this are going to be funneling to judiciary. that's what we understand at this point. this has been very fast-moving and certainly liable to change. that's what we've been reporting right now. it doesn't seem like a special committee is going to happen. there are some hurdles there. they'd have to assemble a staff, populate the committee, they'd risk the ire of members of the judiciary who have been working on this for a long time.

looks like judiciary is going to be in the lead. have no doubt, nancy pelosi going to have tight control over this process over the next couple weeks and months. >> jake sherman, your reporting on this has been extraordinary. if you come up with anything else in the next 22 minutes while we're on the air, call back into our control room. we'll get you right back on the air. >> thanks, nicolle. >> jonathan lemire, this is going from bad to worse for the president. road block coverage, bad for him, road block coverage, bad for him. two, it tends to drive his already historically low poll numbers even lower and, three, that number up there, 179, he's within a couple dozen members that would be needed to impeach him. >> which, of course, is a historic moment to say the least. you're right, the president is -- he's always been very mindful of the optics. the vishls. he co visuals. he comes from tv. has that background. he's obsessed with cable news including some of the program the on this network. he's now going to face days upon

days where itthere's not going be any other story. this is the united nations general assembly. that's why he's in new york today. that's why the press pool is in new york today. this is traditionally a week that is dominated by international affairs and foreign policy. he delivered a speech today that was a pretty hardline warning to iran. and none of that is breaking through. this is the story. and it's going to be for a while now. and as much as the people around the president feel that they can spin this, they feel like they can get a win out of this, president, himself, said so a short time ago, in one of these foreign leader meetings, he took a few questions, the steady drumbeat here is only going to get louder and this is without question a crisis that could imperil and change his presidency. even were he to survive the sort of process in the senate, which, of course, we all expect that he would, you know, he then, we then test -- we then test what happens next. you know, bill clinton as we all know, his poll numbers went up after the republicans impeached him in the late 1990s. bill clinton didn't have to run for re-election again. donald trump does. and, perhaps, this will backfire

on democrats, but the other scenario, just as likely, perhaps, is this will wound, gravely wound, the president next year and he is then beaten by whoever he faces. and john heilemann's gotten entirely too much credit for making a good point on this show, but people around the president have said that those around him have expressed frustration about the timing of this. that the call came with ukrainian president came the day after the mueller report and just inflamed democrats already up in arms that the special counsel didn't lead to the downfall of the presidency, and let's remember, donald trump, himself, openly said in an interview with george stephanopoulos he would be willing to take foreign electoral assistance again and here he is seeking it from the ukrainians. >> i want to get the date on that. that's a great point. the date of the stephanopoulos -- let me follow up on it and hijohn heilemann brought this back to the whistle-blower complaint, put this all in motion with breaking

news. go ahead. >> we're in a new world in a variety of ways. looks like an impeachment inquiry in the house. the senate, not just the mitch mcconnell thing we talked about, it's the case the senate unanimously agreed to chuck schumer's resolution calling for the whistle-blower complaint to be turned over to the intelligence committees immediately. >> wow. >> think about the new world that we're in. one new world is we're in impeachment land. another new world is in the senate where we now have republicans, republicans, apparently, getting on board. i want to ask you what you think's going on there because it may be more consequential in the long run, not that the majority -- that the democrats who control the house are moving on impeachment, but that senate republicans unanimously, just now, said we must see the whistle-blower report. >> it's an unenforceable resolution saying they want the whistle-blower report. >> and yet -- >> which is required by law so there really is no way for republicans to oppose it. but -- >> we've not seen anything like this from senate republicans in a long time. >> look, in the senate, my eyes are on mitt romney. mitt romney is probably the first person that would act on conscience if we were to see any

republican do it. but to the earlier conversation, we're going to see process and optics collide here very shortly. what follows an impeachment inquiry resolution on the house floor is the judiciary committee will set up a quasi-judicial proceeding. it does allow for expedited material to be turned over to the committee. we may see the whistle-blower report. we could see the whistle-blower be compelled to testify in an expedited way. what will then happen, and this is where the optics will get very specific and the house needs to act very precisely, is ultimately, they have to draft resolution -- or articles of impeachment that name an impeachable conduct. treason, bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, perjury. the president never went under oath. so it's not perjury. it's not treason. it would be hard to say bribery, though, you could kind of make the case. so they will have to draft articles around abuse of power and obstruction of justice. and the question is, as i think heidi said earlier, is it just

on ukraine? is it on obstruction of justice in the mueller report? is it on sdni? those will be tough decisions that get made out in the open, and those optics, the president will be having to catch up to. he can't control those decisions as they're being made. he will be charged with articles of impeachment and i think it's investable this president will be impeached. >> you know -- i'm sorry. >> this is where my brethren lawyers can make a mistake. the lawyers' tendency, writing an article, like an indictment, is to throw everything in, all sorts of stuff. if you do that here, bring in all the mueller stuff, everything about obstruction, so on, you lose the focus. >> focus. >> david's right. this is about abuse of public trust. the case our founders thought about impeachment, a breach of your fiduciary duties. the democrats have to decide do they want that laser focus or something broader? in they want something broader, the president is going to have this whole story about being cleared and what barr said, this and that. >> recall there were four

articles against bill clinton and the house only approved two. there were four voted on on the house floor. only two passed. >> if you look at where even just with donald trump and brazen lawlessness and sloppy, sort of incompetent law busting and norm busting, he got away with everything because there was too much. there's this sense that even he benefited from the volume of misconduct. that if you keep it -- if you just go back to nancy pelosi, what brought her around, the intractable nancy pelosi, was the simple act of picking up the phone the day after mueller testified and asking ukraine to bury a potential rival. >> that's why i think the democrats' best strategy here is to use this as an exemplar of a broader constitutional attitude. not to focus on the rest. >> the kitchen sink. >> this is it. >> all right. all right. we're keeping our eye on capitol hill waiting for what could be an historic moment as nancy pelosi is expected to announce an impeachment inquiry into donald trump. after the break, the president's real intended target in all this alleged corruption, joe biden, with his own strong words on impeachment. that's next.

what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪

with time, comes change that's for sure... and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash, tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love. it's a viable effective way to support your other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now!

i can take the political attacks. they'll come and they'll go and in time, they'll soon be forgotten. but if we allow a president to get away with shredding the united states constitution, that will last forever. it's time for this administration to stop stonewalling and provide the congress with all the facts it needs. including a copy of the formal complaint made by the whistle-blower. using his full constitutional authority, congress, in my view, should demand the information it has a legal right to receive. the congress does not -- the president does not comply with such a request from the congress, it continues to obstruct congress and flount the law, donald trump will leave congress, in my view, no choice but to initiate impeachment. that would be a tragedy, but a

tragedy of his own making. >> joe biden there, the intended target of donald trump's effort to conspire with the president of ukraine, there responding saying that impeachment may be the inevitable outcome here. be the inevitable outcome here. >> good for joe biden, that was a presidential moment. frankly his campaign got the optics right for that moment as well. the curiosityive iv have is, he down on the side of daylight. is that what nancy pelosi will say at 5:00? not the transformational leadership moment that we may see for nancy pelosi. joe biden understood this is the speaker's job. biden had to make a statement, it was presidential, he kept it clean but he was firm. we'll see if nancy pelosi goes further than joe biden. i suspect she will. >> and he brought the attention

back to the whistleblower complaint, a resolution in the senate to have that turned over to its intended recipient, congress. this whistleblower, from my understanding, never wanted to be known. is washington still a place that can protect a whistleblower's identity? >> i would strongly believe this is going to leak pretty soon, especially if this whistleblower testifies, as i suspect they will, even though it's closed door testimony. what's most of the interesting about joe biden's comments that you just played, going back to neal's point, narrowly defining what this all about is. he talked about how this is an abuse of power, a national security threat, and how the president is not putting the national interests before his own personal interests. and i think that is something that democrats, whether it's the camp that joe biden is falling into or the camp that nancy pelosi will fall into, will

really have to narrowly define, because it's too much for people to understand and take in for once. the mueller investigation was a slow drip-drip for many months. this has smacked us all in the face in the last couple of weeks and we've had a difficult time making sense of it, imagine how the folks sitting home feel. that's what joe biden was prioritizing over saying we have to impeach him right now. >> there is systematic harm if this whistleblower's identity leaks. once your identity leaks, your life is horrible. ever since the continental congress, our system has depended on whistleblowers. chuck grassley used to stand up for whistleblowers all the time. where is he now? is the so-called whistleblower caucus going to get engaged and get the facts? >> especially since president trump has already labeled them as partisan, which we don't know

that he knows who the person is. >> we're not in ideal circumstances, the most of the obvious thing in the world. what i mean is, this whistleblower's identity, i'm not sure it can be protected now. it's not the press's fault, it's not anybody's fault, but the fact that the trump administration mishandled this thing the way it did. we don't know what the whistleblower thinks, but the reporting is they want to testify. >> wants to speak to congress. >> wants to speak to congress. does that person believe there's a way for that to happen and not have their identity known? if they think that, they're

being a little nye eaivnaive. it is tragic but the trump administration in mishandling this, the acting dni, the president of the united statestates, having abused the process, this person is going to become public because of the fact that if they do not become public, donald trump will continue to make this person a fantasy character, a whipping boy. >> andy mccabe 2.0. >> right. it's unfortunate this person has to bear this burden but this person will have to bear the burden of becoming a public figure and hopefully, you know, turning out to be the kind of patriot that we assume on the basis of the information we currently have, that this person was. this person was genuinely concerned that the president was doing something that was lawless, an abuse of power, and followed the rules to do what a whistleblower is supposed to do. >> to stay anonymous. >> now heroism is being thrust on this person. there's no way around that, even though it's high suboptimal for the system. >> let me bring jonathan lemire

back in. donald trump he's plas a playbo people like andy mccabe opening an investigation into donald trump's ties to russia, rod rosenstein calling for pointing appointing a special counsel, and you can go on and on, even his own intelligence chief, dan coats, disagreeing on iran, north korea, russia. do you think it's a foregone conclusion that war will be waged on the whistleblower? >> there is a script, we've seen the president use it before, and we should have expectation that he will again. yes, on the whistleblower whose identity is still secret, let's hope it stays that way although i agree with those at the table

who say they doubt it will, the president has said this person must be a democrat and later said he doesn't know the person's identity. we also saw it from rudy giuliani, the interview with cnn, it's going to be about smokescreens and fog and trying to muddle the issue, in that case it was about joe biden. the people around the president think they can still lean in on the biden/ukraine corruption issue. let's be clear for the viewers, there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing, the prosecutor in the ukraine says bidens did nothing wrong. we'll see that line of attack. we'll certainly see lines of attack on congress, various committee chairs, those involved in the achievement approve. we' process. and the whistleblower himself or herself. it will be smokescreen, trying to muddle the waters, confuse

the public, and largely this will break down along party lines like the russia investigation did, unless there is something just to compelling, unless the actually move towards impeachment really changes public opinion like it did during the nixon proceedings. at least so far during this administration, whatever is thrown at donald trump, his supporters stay with him. >> it's a good point, but neal, we don't know, if an impeachment is a focus, which i think is your urging, everything you've said today has been prescript e ive about this approve, mike murphy he's piece in "the washington post" about the good people in the republican party, i don't see those good people anymore. it looks like he will be impeached by the house, as jake

sherman says, but the real game changing event would be if the conduct as relieved in the whistleblower complaint if that's transmitted to congress is to egregious that republicans wake up. >> right. it's a fundamental baseline problem, when people say, nothing's happened to the president for the last three years, therefore nothing can happen with this new impeachment proceeding, because after all, we've never done it before, we haven't had the hearings, democrats and pelosi and schiff and other people draw the eyes of the nation, republicans and democrats likealike. i'm not a republican, you were, buttive to have faith that our leaders, if the facts are what we've been learning the last week, i don't think there's any other conclusion than impeachment and ultimate removal of this president. >> nancy pelosi is expected to come out in the next minute and

a half and announce the commencement of a formal impeachment approve for donald trump. we believe it to be centered on revelations over the past only week and a half about his conduct, first exposed by a whistleblower, about the president asking the president of ukraine -- jonathan lemire pointed out, the ukrainians did investigate and found no corruption, it's been adjudicated. as with uranium one, as with all the other fox fantasy investigations, they're made up. >> the president is trying to create a fire out of smoke. it's the opposite than where there's fosmoke, there's fire. the president is trying to create a flame out of the smoke

which i believe according to the laws of physics is impossible, and of course driven by ill motives. the story broke land wednesday. we are six days into this and the speed -- >> i guess we knew there was a whistleblower complaint coming out of the dni. >> one of the defining features of the trump era is the incredible speed, ferocity with which information happens. it was apt that we would end up here after all these months of waiting around, that the thing that turned out to be the trigger could turn it this quickly. >> it's a great point, it was last wednesday "the washington post" broke the story about the whistleblower complaint being tied to the president's conduct with ukraine. >> it snapped everyone square in the face. >> there's nancy pelosi. >> tuesday we observed the anniversary of the adoption of the constitution on