now on "andrea mitchell reports," developments moving at light speed as speaker nancy pelosi reacts to the white house release of notes from his call with ukraine's leader. will any republicans break ranks with the president and will his witch hunt refrain stick? >> the fact is the president of the united states in breach of his constitutional responsibilities has asked a foreign government to help him in his political campaign at the expense of our national security as well as undermining the integrity of our elections. that cannot stand. he will be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> i did read the transcript. it remains troubling in the extremely. it's deeply troubling. >> there's no pressure ever. it's the single greatest witch hunt in history.

gad dood day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell here in new york. the fourth american president to face a formal impeachment inquiry, the day after house speaker nancy pelosi launched the probe, the white house released its log, notes, or transcript, if you will, of what was said in that call. the new bombshell this morning, the president saying to ukraine's president, quote, there's a lot of talk about biden's son and a lot of people want to find out about that. whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. it sounds horrible to me. there is an explicit exchange about weapons in ukraine. the president had frozen a week earlier $400 million in aid that congress had appropriated for ukraine. ukraine's president zelensky asks, i would like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready

to buy more javelins, that's a weapon system, from the united states for defense purposes. president trump replies, according to the white house transcript at least, i would like you to do us a favor, though. he asked for help in getting to the origins of the mueller probe. is that a quid pro quo? joining me now, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, nbc political analyst peter baker, co-author of "impeachment in american history," and nbc justice correspondent pete williams. kristen, first to you, the president is pushing back very hard. we're hearing witch hunt, witch hunt, some of the same refrains that he used very effectively to discredit the mueller probe. at the same time, when you look at these notes or this transcript, whatever they are, there are a lot of very troubling questions that foreign policy and national security experts are raising and

congressional democrats, at least, and mitt romney, not necessarily violations of law but violations of ethical issues. >> there's no doubt about that, andrea. and i can tell you, as the administration was having the debate about whether to release these notes, that was part of the concern, that there would be gray area, and in fact there seems to be fact that you have president trump pressing the president of ukraine to investigate his chief political rival, the former vice president, the fact that he mentioned the javelins, the fact that he used the term "favor," all of that will come under scrutiny and democrats and republicans will argue whether there are ethical or legal violations there. bottom line, what we saw today is a president who is going to respond to all of this with defiance. he called it a witch hunt. he talked about the strength of the economy. i think he gave us a real window india what we're going to see from president trump on the campaign trail as he fights for

reelection. there are those within trump world who think the president will be emboldened by this, they say it will ensure his reelection. but president trump himself i think is torn on this matter. this is someone who talked about receiving the nobel peace prize this week while he's holding these meetings at the u.n. general assembly. he doesn't want to be associated with these three presidents who have in fact faced impeachment. one of his allies on capitol hill said, the reality is the number of republicans who are concerned about the potential political implications. >> pete williams, the justice department in releasing this, and in explaining it and backgrounding it to the u.s. justice department, they're focusing on whether a law was broken. in the whistle-blower's complaint, they focus on the campaign finance law, something

of value being exchanged, saying that didn't take place so therefore this is not a justifiable intelligence complaint. congress is pushing back hard on that. what is the attorney general's argument? >> it's not the attorney general's argument, for starters, andrea. the justice department is saying he played virtually no role in what we learned about today, which is that two things happened when this inspector general said there's a whistle-blower complaint. we learned, number one, this complaint was from someone in the intelligence community who learned this secondhand from what the whistle-blower called white house officials, thinking this was an effort to get a foreign government involved in a campaign, that would violate campaign finance laws and potentially be a national security risk. what the justice department said is, number one, it concluded that a complaint like that didn't fit the terms of the law that requires reporting whi

whistle-blower complaints to congress, because it was a diplomatic call. that's point one. point two, we learned, and this is new today, that while the justice department told the intel community this doesn't fit the whistle-blower statute reporting requirements to congress, the right thing to do is to refer this to the justice department for criminal investigation, and that's what happened, the justice department conducted a criminal investigation about whether the president's call violated federal campaign finance laws. what we're told this morning is that career and political people in the criminal division, including the public integrity section, looked at this and decided it didn't fit, it didn't amount to a violation of federal campaign finance laws because what the president talked about with the president of ukraine did not amount -- what he asked for did not amount to a thing of value which is the term that's used in the federal law. and they also said that attorney general barr was not involved in

making that decision. he was simply informed of the decision by the criminal division. >> and pete, and peter baker here, "the new york times" is pointing out key issues congress will be looking at. let's look at them. as you see them, it's trump asking for an investigation into the bidens, trump alluding to american aid while not explicitly linking his request to unfreezing it, zelensky agreeing to pursue an inquiry into the bidens, trump saying attorney general barr would call the ukrainian president about another investigation, president trump casting aspersions on western europe and germany as ukrainian allies saying they hadn't done enough when in fact europe did twice as much last year than the u.s. did in terms of military aid, president trump portraying rudy giuliani, his personal lawyer, as an envoy. in one sentence, i believe on

laura ingraham on fox, he said he would not have to testify because he has lawyer/client privilege with the testimony and then said he was a state department envoy. what makes him a state department envoy? >> it's hard to imagine the state department asked him to get the ukrainians to investigate vice president biden. he's all over the map, rudy giuliani has given different accounts of his involvement, he said i didn't ask them to investigate, on cnn, then a minute later i said, of course i asked. this is not about law, right? an impeachment does not have to be about a criminal law. that may relate to whether the dni should report to congress or what the justice department should do with it. in talking about what nancy pelosi did yesterday, starting an impeachment inquiry, we're talking about high crimes and misdemeanors. that's not a criminal matter. that's whatever the house of representatives decides it is.

in general we've seen in the past that abuse of power, it doesn't necessarily have to be a criminal law but something we as a house take issue with. >> adam schiff, chair of the intelligence committee, is speaking. let's listen. >> more damning than i and others had imagined. it is shocking on one level that the white house would release these notes and felt that somehow this would help the president's case or cause, because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader. they reflect a ukrainian president who was desperate for u.s. support, for military support, to help that country in a hot war with putin's russia, a country that is still occupied by irregular russian forces, in which people face a very

dangerous and continuing and destabilizing action by their aggressive neighbor, and at the same time, a president of the united states who immediately after the ukraine president expresses the need for further weapons, tells the ukraine president that evaluatedhe has o ask. the president communicates to his ukrainian counterpart that the united states has done an awful lot for ukraine, we've done a lot for ukraine, more than the europeans have done for ukraine, but there is not much reciprocity here. this is how a mafia boss talks. i have a favor to ask you. and what is that favor? to investigate his political rival, to investigate the bidens. it's clear the ukraine president understands exactly what is expected of him and is making

every effort to mollify the president. what adds another layer of depravity to this conversation is the fact that the president of the united states then invokes the attorney general of the united states as well as his personal lawyer as emissaries, in the case of the attorney general, as an official head of a u.s. department, the department of justice, to be part and parcel of this. the attorney general is denying involvement in this. but nonetheless, you could see why the department of justice would want this transcript never to see the light of day. you can see why they have worked so hard to deprive our committee of the whistle-blower complaint. and in fact the opinion by the justice department is startling in its own regard, because in that opinion the department of justice advances the absurd

claim that the director of national intelligence has no responsibility over efforts to prevent foreign interference in our elections. well, that will come as news, or at least it should, to the director of national intelligence who is charged, among other things, with detecting foreign interference in our elections and reporting to congress about foreign interference in our elections. but it is apparently the view of this justice department that the director has no jurisdiction in this area. it is a sad fact that the director of national intelligence would agree to be bound by that view, that the director of national intelligence would adopt the view that he had no jurisdiction over an effort to seek foreign interference in our election. that will be the subject of our hearing with the director tomorrow. what's more, the department of justice opinion doesn't even preclude the director from providing that complaint to our committee and yet he has withheld it in violation of the law. but the fact that the president

of the united states would invoke the attorney general sends a further message to the ukrainian president that this is not just me asking, this is not just rudy giuliani asking, this is the united states government asking, and we plan to effectuate that through the department of justice, whether those steps have taken place yet or not, or whether those steps have now been preevenvented by whistle-blower complaint and all that has followed from that revelation. so here we have the president of the united states engaged in a shakedown of a foreign president, a president of the united states, even as he is withholding vital military support to an ally, asking a favor of that ally to investigate his opponent. and just by way of background here, so we know what's at stake, in 1994, we tried to get

ukraine to give up nuclear weapons it had inherited from the soviet union. they were reluctant to do so because those weapons might be a guarantee against aggression by their neighbor, that is, by the soviet union. but we and our allies persuaded the ukrainians nonetheless to give up those weapons and we assured ukraine that we would help guarantee its territorial integrity. well, russia would then invade ukraine. and over the years since that invasion the united states has provided, albeit not enough, military support to ukraine. but the most recent support to ukraine was held up by this president, hundreds of millions of dollars, for reasons that the president would not and the secretaries were not able to communicate even to leaders of their own party like mitch mcconnell, who said yesterday that he couldn't find out why this aid was being withheld. well, i think we know why the

aid was being withheld, notwithstanding the president's now conflicting explanations, well, it was because we wanted them to investigate corruption, no, it was because we wanted europe to give them more money even though europe has given them even more than we have. i think we know why the president was withholding that assistance. but regardless, ukraine understood exactly what was being asked of it. ukraine understood exactly what they needed from the united states. that a president of the united states would interfere with our national security, would interfere with the national security of our ally and do so for the illicit purpose of trying to advance his election campaign, having already sought for help in his first presidential campaign, would now abuse the power of his office yet again, this time to seek the office of another nation in his presidential campaign, is the most fundamental betrayal of his oath of office. and i would be happy to respond to your questions, but one final

point about the whistle-blower. we still don't have the complaint. now that we have the department of justice's opinion, i think it telling that they have released that, yet not released the inspector general's legal analysis that takes issue with it. this is again bill barr's justice department trying to put out a misleading spin, in this case in the form of the department's opinion. but nevertheless, that complaint needs to be provided to our committee. it needs to be provided in its entirety. that whistle-blower needs to be given instructions on how to come to our committee and that whistle-blower needs to be given the complete freedom to report any allegations of wrongdoing that have come to that whistle-blower's attention. we will not brook any kind of interference, given how pervasive this coverup apparently is. i'll be happy to answer your questions. >> reporter: the white house says this call summary proves

there was no quid pro quo because the withheld military aid never even came up in the conversation. >> my response is the president of ukraine brought up his country's need for military assistance and immediately thereafter the president of the united states said, i have a favor i want to ask of you, and would not let the subject go. there was only one message that that president of ukraine got from that call and that was, this is what i need, i know what you need. like any mafia boss, the president didn't need to say "that's a nice country you have, it would be a shame if something happened to it," because that was clear from the conversation. there was no quid pro quo necessary to betray your country or your oath of office. even though many read this as a quid pro quo. i'm not concerned with whether it is a quid pro quo or not. ukraine understood what this president wanted. he made it abundantly clear, he

made it redundantly clear, he had his emissaries making it clear. and ukraine needed -- knew what it needed to do if it wanted to get military assistance, and that is help the president of the united states violate his oath of office. >> reporter: what specifically due see as the impeachable offense here? >> i think in its most naked form, and this is what our inquiry is going to look into, the president has now admitted the notes of this call, and we don't even know if this is the complete notes of that call, indicate the president of the united states shaking down a foreign leader, essentially undermining the national security of this country, for a personal political gain and one that violates his oath of office. so it is very powerful evidence

of that kind of potential impeachable offense. but we want to get the full facts before the american people and we also want to make sure we take corrective action. i want to thank the whistle-blower. we still don't know if this is the subject of the whistle-blower's complaint. but i think this my uncle courageous individual may have had the effect of forcing the white house to provide ukraine with this funding, knowing that these matters were going to come to light. but this whistle-blower has already had a tremendous impact in supposing wrongdoing in the president of the united states and helping protect our national security in a way that his or her boss was unwilling to do. and by that i mean the director as well as the president of the united states. >> reporter: -- impeachment for some time, yesterday you came out in support of what the speaker announced. after seeing what you saw in this transcript, is there any doubt in your mind that house democrats will move to impeach

the president? >> i don't want to get ahead of ourselves here. i think what we have learned, what has been admitted, and now what we see in writing, is about as damning as you can imagine. it will be a decision for us when we conclude our investigative work, whether to bring this and other matters in the form of articles to a vote. and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. but no one should have any illusions about the seriousness of what is already uncontested, and that is the president of the united states has betrayed his oath of office and sacrificed our national security in doing so. and that i think is quintessentially what the framers were concerned about. i think it's quintessentially what the frame errs thought mig warrant a president's removal

from office. i don't want to understate the significance of what's already been revealed. i also don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. >> reporter: do you expect to hear -- >> you heard a very strong response from representative adam schiff, house intel chair, saying this is more damning than he had thought, and comparing the president's conversation as depicted in these notes as sounding like a mafia boss saying to the ukrainian leader, that's a nice country you have there, a shame if something happened to it. >> strong language from a leader of the democrats who has been leading the charge to impeach president trump. you left that conversation feeling very clear where he thinks this should go. we'll see if the rest of the house democrats agree. >> pete williams, you had one more point you wanted to make about william barr and whatever role he played.

>> just that the justice department says barr was never told about this white house call until this matter was referred here for criminal investigation, that the president has never talked to him about this, that he's never talked to anyone in ukraine about it and never talked to rudy giuliani about it. >> peter baker, kristcountriekr pete williams, that ynk you ver much. madam congresswoman, now that you've seen the notes that the white house has released, what is your reaction? >> well, i thought chairman schiff was very powerful in his remarks. i'm very worried about how divided this country is. that's deeply bothered met last few months. as we began to get reports of

what was there, we know we had a whistle-blower. we know the inspector general determined it was something that was a potential threat to our national security and said that it was urgent, and that the report should go to the hill. and the administration blocked it. the department of justice didn't feel it mattered. well, if it didn't matter, then why didn't they send it to the hill so all this speculation didn't start? my fundamental responsibility is to protect the national security of this country and protect the constitution. and all of us, we should never be divided about following the rule of law. and that is now a serious question. >> nancy pelosi was talking about the caucus meeting yesterday. can you give us your insights, i know you can't quote people from caucus meetings, but what is the mood of the caucus now? >> well, and we've had several meetings in the last 24 hours. i think that it is very

important, i feel very strongly that we need an investigation, we need to have the facts. even as we stand here and we have this, it's not a transcript, it is notes from a meeting, there are dots in it, we haven't heard from the whistle-blower, we haven't heard from the inspector general. and actually the notes have faci fairly disturbing. i think it's important that we get the facts and hold people accountable. in that caucus there are members who have felt for long time that we should have begun impeachment. and there are a lot of members worried about these recent reports in the last week. i think it is critical that we stay united as a caucus and that we need to follow the facts. we need to be talking about an issue that the american people clearly understand. we don't need to be divided. we don't need to be all over the map. it should not look like we are on a witch hunt, to use the word

of the president. we're protecting our national security. and i think everybody in the caucus knows we need to be united and we need to do this in a way that doesn't divide the country further but protects our national security. >> the speaker has said it has to be done this year before we get into the 2020 campaign. is there time left, would it be better to have a select committee, to have a single liter and vice chair and do what was done with iran-contra, with the watergate committees, with six competing chairmen with the egos involved, will it devolve into something similar to the corey lewandowski hearing which by all accounts was a public relations disaster? >> i'm going to say to you there's a nobody stronger as a leader than leader pelosi. i've had three meetings with her in the last 18 hours and she's been keeping her finger on these investigations. each of these committees he's a

different area of specialty, in what they are following. they will forward their findings to the judiciary committee, which will ultimately have to decide what happens. do you know that 52% of the members of our caucus are on those committees? they all care, so they're all participating in this. and that's an important fact. by the way, the rest of us, i'm so focused on lowering drug prices, i'm so focused on getting a trade deal for those uaw workers on the picket lines. we have to protect our country, we have to protect our national security, but if you look at richard nixon and look at bill clinton, they did substance. richard nixon passed major laws. we have to keep doing that too. >> congresswoman debbie dingell, thank you so much for joining us from capitol hill today. was president trump asking the president of ukraine for some kind of quid pro quo in that july phone call? here is what jeremy bash, former

chief of staff of the cia, told savannah guthrie today about what jumped out to him when he saw the notes from the white house. >> the president of ukraine says, where are the javelins, where is the defense support you're giving us? we need it for, quote, defense purposes, the president of the ukraine says. the very next sentence by the president is, i would like you to do us a favor. it's not like different parts of the transcript. it is literally the president of the ukraine says help us with defense and the president says, i would like you to do us a favor. i don't think it's any clearer that this conversation was about a trade. defense support for support politically for the president. >> leon panetta is a former defense secretary, former cia director, and worked with jeremy bash, so you know exactly what he's focused on. from your perspective, having read the declassified notes from that call, what is illegal or

inappropriate, what is impeachable? what is your take? >> well, i don't think there's any question that this is probably the most serious moment in a situation that's taken us through a lot of crises. the reality is there is a very serious allegation here that the president of the united states violated his oath of office. and the transcript basically confirms that this president used that phone call in order to get a political favor from the leader of another country, which in and of itself is a violation of a law. but then tying it to a conversation about military aid, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that the leader of the ukraine knew exactly what the president was

asking, and that he was continuing to withhold that aid until the president provided that favor that the president was asking. so we've got a very serious allegation. i know there will be a tendency to argue the politics and sound bites of politics about this issue. but i think this is really a moment when both democrats and republicans have to remember their responsibility and their oath to office, which is to do everything necessary to make sure that they enforce the constitution of the united states. >> is it appropriate for the president's private lawyer to be mentioned in this phone call and to be representing himself as being -- as acting on behalf of the state department in interactions with the ukrainian government? >> well, i think there are a lot of issues that are obviously raised here. and one of those issues is whether or not the president was conspiring with his personal

attorney to basically try to get this political favor from the president of the ukraine. there is no question that it is unheard of, certainly in my experience, for the respect to make reference to a personal attorney when he's talking to the president of another country. but i clearly states that rudy giuliani has to be talked to and that the attorney general should be talked to as well. so it raises a serious issue as to whether or not, in addition to everything else that's involved here, there was a conspiracy between the president and his personal attorney to try to conduct this illegal act. >> and joseph maguire will be testifying tomorrow, he's the acting director of national intelligence. he issued a statement last night which backs off some of the personal attacks against the

whistle-blower that we've heard from administration officials and the president in recent days. he says in his written statement, as public servants, the men and women of the intelligence community have a solemn responsibility to do what is right which includes reporting wrongdoing. i am committed to protecting whistle-blowers and ensuring every complaint is handled appropriately. so none of this talk that you've heard from the president of this being a partisan attack by a partisan whistle-blower. are you at all reassured now that the acting dni is not inappropriately withholding this whistle-blower complaint, or should this be automatically turned over to the committee as the committee claims? >> there's no question that if the director of national intelligence is going to enforce the whistle-blower act, which he's responsible to do, that here you've got a whistle-blower who makes a complaint, and the

inspector general finds it to be both credible and urgent, and transfers it to the dni to be turned over, i mean, the law basically requires that it shall be turned over to the intelligence committees, both the house and senate, but for whatever reason, withholds turning it over, i think it's clear that the dni was not fulfilling his responsibility under the law. so one of the issues that does have to be included here in this investigation is what did the whistle-blower -- what was the complaint about, have that complaint turned over to the committee so they can see it and be able to look at it. i think the test of whether or not the dni believes in the whistle-blower act will be whether or not he presents that complaint to the committees of

jurisdiction. >> secretary panetta, thanks for being with us. lindsey graham is speaking now at the senate. let's listen to the judiciary chair. >> coming from the united states. there is a paper -- there is a paper trail -- there is a paper trail of concerns about providing aid the way we had in the past after the election. i know that to be true because i talked to the pentagon. and again, most americans are going to judge trump by a variety of things. but a lot of people are wondering why the vice president weighed in and threatened to cut off aid to a country while his son was receiving money from some of the people being investigated. and i love joe biden as a person. maybe a good reason to fire the prosecutor in the ukraine. but there's clearly a conflict there. >> reporter: they spoke about selling military weapons they wanted to buy and the next conversation was, we're trying to look into corruption with vice president biden.

>> you read the thing for yourself. yeah, i think -- i think to suggest that this phone call was the president of the united states threatening to withhold aid to the ukraine unless they did his political bidding is ridiculous. if you'll look at the surrounding facts regarding aid to the ukraine, people in department of defense and other agencies were worried about continuing the aid because of this new administration. when you asked the ukrainian president did you feel threatened, he says no. you can read the phone call for yourself. what the president did do is point out a conflict of interest the vice president had when he argued for the dmifismissal of prosecutor, no more, no less. >> reporter: the chairman of the house intelligence committee says this is a mob-like shakedown. >> you can read it for yourself. they're the same people that told you he was colluding with the russians. they're the same people who wanted to impeach trump the day he got elected. people got to figure this for

themselves. bring the whistle-blower forward. if there's something out there we don't know, i'm willing to life to the whistle-blower under oath. i would say to my friends in the house, 31 democrats voted with republicans to open an inquiry, impeachment inquiry into president clinton one month about the election. so i'm challenging nancy pelosi to have a vote on this. moderate democrats are hiding behind her. if you really believe this is an impeachable offense, vote on it. we did this in 1998. >> reporter: in 1999, you said this is about the integrity of the white house, this isn't about -- this is not the same thing, sir. if the president was colluding earlier, whether or not what the mueller report said, isn't it -- >> i feel good about what i did. bill clinton lost his law

license for five years. he was reprimanded by the court for lying under oath. i feel like he took the law in his own hands. that's what i felt like. but if you think the president has sold the office, do something about it. if you think this is an impeachable offense, vote. go on the record. the one thing drives me crazy is to talk in the abstract. have the courage of your convictions. read the phone call for yourself. if you think this is out of bounds, this is a quid pro quo, whatever you think, go public with it, let's vote, because we did this in 1998 and 31 democrats agreed to open an inquiry against president clinton. it wasn't partisan. it turned out to be partisan. >> lindsey graham, the senate judiciary chairman, of course a close ally of the president, with his take on all it this. neal katyal, former acting solicitor general is an msnbc legal analyst.

so, your take, having looked at these notes, and we don't know what the actual transcript would indicate, but this is what we have been given. is it exculpatory as lindsey graham said or is this damning to the president as adam schiff said? >> i think it's pretty devastating for the president. this isn't even a full transcript. this is just a memo recording parts of what happened on that july 25th call. in the past, white house memos have not been fully accurate, but even here, and this is the clip you played from jeremy bash a little while ago, if you look at the bottom of page 2 of this white house memo, you have the ukrainian president saying, look, mr. president, we would really like to buy javelins, a weapons system. the president's next words are, okay, but i need a favor from you, though, first. and that favor is crowd strike,

go into biden and all that. you don't need a quid pro quo for impeachable conduct at all, representative schiff is right, but actually, this is looking like a quid pro quo. >> why is the justice department involved at all as a whi whistle-blower case? why was the white house brought into this, why was it not turned over immediately? the justice department says it wasn't a proper whistle-blower case because the people on the call did not involve an intelligence community eye witness, it was someone told about it. >> andrea, your question is so important, because i think actually that's one of the underreported pieces of the news that comes out today, which is that the justice department was involved in all this. congress passed the whistle-blower statute and what it says is, if the inspector general, who by the way, here is a trump appointee, finds an

urgent need to turn over the whistle-blower complaint, he has to turn it over to the intelligence committees of the congress within a few days. what happened here is that the boss of the inspector general, the acting head of the intelligence community, the dni, went and gave it to the office of legal counsel, which is an elite or used to be an elite office of 20 attorneys at the justice department. in this administration that office has been basically just giving the president get out of jail free cards left and right. they politicized that function. so that's what happened here. there is interference by the office of legal counsel. indeed also by the criminal division of the justice department as well. >> so is this a proper whistle-blower case and does this intelligence community person have the whistle-blower protection or is this person vulnerable? >> 100%. now, look, they're going to be vulnerable, because unfortunately, and we've seen this all morning, there are people who will do anything to go after this person and try to destroy their life. having represented a whistle-blower,ic tell i can

tell you this is difficult to do. this person is going to go through a full attack. absolutely, this is what the whistle-blower act is all about. this is what chuck grassley has told the supreme court in whistle-blower cases in the past which is, when you've got a national security situation and someone is willing to come forward and say, hey, there's something really damning here, gosh darn it, that's exactly what the congress of the united states needs to find out and research for the american people. so, you know, what speaker pelosi did is compelled by what this whistle-blower has said. >> you're referencing the iowa senator who preceded lindsey graham has republican chair of the judiciary committee. >> absolutely. >> neal katyal, thank you very much. mitt romney is the only republican to condemn the president's phone call with the ukrainian president. he signaled caution today in the impeachment fight. >> i did read the transcript. it remains troubling in the

extreme. it's deeply troubling. >> reporter: what due do do you do beyond be troubled by it? >> the senate is looking at the testimony of the whistle-blower so there is an evaluation of gathering more facts. clearly what we've seen from the transcript itself is deeply troubling. >> reporter: should republicans be speaking out more about this? >> i can only speak for myself. >> garrett haake on the chase in the hauls of congress. former congressman david jolly, and mike murphy, former senior adviser to mitt romney, an msnbc political analyst. mike, mitt romney, a caution expression of concern, which is as far as republicans in the senate have gone. >> he wins the award for bravery and patriotism by going that far compared to his colleagues. i heard lindsey graham, someone

i used to hold in such high regard when we worked together with john mccain, completely shilling for the president after we now know from this transcript that it was a shakedown. i couldn't be more disappointed in some of these folks. i think as the facts build, so may opinions. i had an op-ed piece in "the washington post" yesterday when i argued the democrats, should this be as bad as it appears to be, should vote impeachment because it's time to pin republicans down on a yea/nay, no more of them dodging. let's get everybody on the record. >> to david jolly, you know your former colleagues in the house republican side. where are they going to be when this inquiry opens formally, if there is a recommendation, it goes to the house floor. >> look, they're scrambling right now, andrea, for message in opposition to what the democrats are about to embark on. you've heard leaders say it's not even an impeachment inquiry.

well, it is, because the house democrats have essentially said now, yes, it is. what you're hearing from them, they're going off talking points from the president this morning, saying there was no quid pro quo. andrea, we have got to make a fine point around this. we hear that from lindsey graham as well, no quid pro quo. what we know already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, without any insinuation, is that the president of the united states asked a foreign leader to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general of the justice department that the president is responsible for administering, to investigate his political opponent. andrea, that is abuse of power as the framers envisioned when they wrote the impeachment clause. there is no quid pro quo required. you heard chairman schiff refer to that. we may see evidence of quid pro quo. it certainly looks like it. we know that donald trump was

speaking from a place of leverage when he was on this call. we do not have to have a debate around quid pro quo to have a debate about impeachment. the evidence is already there. >> in fact there is division in the republican ranks according to our colleagues robert costa of "the washington post," he writes just now that one senate republican who requested anonymity to speak candidly said, the transcript's release was a huge mistake that the gop now has to confront even as they argue that house democrats are overreaching with their impeachment effort. mike murphy, politically this could be poison for the house democrats and the democratic party in 2020, but this transcript certainly on the face of it does not clear the president as they've been claiming. >> yeah, no, the old theory on impeachment was it would help the republicans. i think that's out the window now. this is a much clearer incident than the mueller report information. and so when the president released this transcript, you really have to parse your way through it and eliminate all b

subtext to say no quid pro quo. i agree with david that it doesn't have to be quid pro quo. the president of the ukraine asked for antitank missiles because he has a problem, russian mercenary tanks. the president says, well, let me talk to you a minute about some other things, i'm a great friend of the ukraine except we haven't really been paid back, let's get into this biden matter. it's a classic shakedown. that's going to be the argument. these senate republicans, should the democrats vote impeachment which is far more likely than not, are going to be pinned down to a yes/no answer. if they provide cover to donald trump for this, a clear violation of his role as president, we're going to lose colorado with cory gardner, we're going to lose maine with susan collins, we're going to lose arizona with mcsally and the democrats will put the senate very much in play. the cold hard toll picpolitics will get worse and worse for

trump. maybe that will motivate him going forward. romney's right, more facts. one republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 republican senators would vote to impeach trump. >> congressman jolly, briefly, part of these notes of the call show that the president is complaining about the prosecutor, the ukrainian prosecutor being fired under pressure from joe biden. the facts show that the imf, all the european institutions, all our allies, wanted this prosecutor fired because he was personally corrupt himself. >> that's right. this conspiracy theory will be adopted by trump and frankly fox news and his followers. but this is where the impetus on house democrats is incredibly important, to approach this with precision and clarity, because if you give a clear abuse of power article to the senate, to mike's point, people like mitt romney are going to have a moment of conscience and clarity and perhaps a call of history

and realize this president has to be admonished within the four corners of this article. we cannot have a debate about a conspiracy theory. democrats have to keep this very clean. >> congressman, former congressman david jolly, mike murphy, thank you both so much. coming up, agent of the state? why the president's attorney, rudy giuliani, says he got involved with conversations with the president of ukraine. ♪ ♪ ♪

[upbeat music ♪] you got this. you got this. you got this. you got this. (dwight branford) i'll leave you with this. do your best, because your best is needed. and your best is needed every single day.

(amber jaggers) students that come from underserved backgrounds, they don't think there is any other way of life. they think that's it for them. if we don't give them the tools that they need, they're not going to be competitive in the workforce that's waiting for them. in the past, shawnee had no technology. with verizon innovative learning, it was like someone had been listening to my thoughts on what education should be. it gives students hardware and connectivity, and provides curriculum to train teachers. now, we are a school that has high growth and high achievement. i see new opportunities for our students, and i see them truly hopeful for what they may achieve.

to find out, olay faced the world.better than olay? we tested our vitamin b3 formula and beat japan's top moisturizers. south korea's most innovative. and even the $400 french cream. olay regenerist faced 131 premium products in 12 countries, over 10 years. olay's hydration was unbeaten every time. olay. face anything.

rudy giuliani is front and center, president trump's personal lawyer emerging as a central figure in the controversy of the relationship with ukraine. rudy giuliani says he's been operating as the president's private attorney and has lawyer's privilege if he's called to testify. now he says he's meeting with ukraine leaders on behalf of the state department. >> you know who i did it at the request of? the state department. i never talked to ukraine officials until the state department called me and ask me to do it and i reported every consideration ba conversation back to them. it is all here, right here. the first call from the state

department. >> joining me now, ambassador wendy sherman who knows something of this, and our msnbc global affair and anne gearan, white house correspondent who knows a lot about everything. what about rudy giuliani acting as an envoy for the state department? >> you know very well because you know the state department so well. a private citizen can take on an objective but they become a special government employee, they have to go through ethic vetting and i suspect it did not happen. i don't believe anything that comes out of rudy giuliani's mouth. he's been all over the place in this discussion and yes, indeed i would suspect at some point the state department may have spoken to him. it could have been because they were concerned of what the heck he was up to. >> anne, we got the president

saying talk to my private lawyer and the attorney general, they represent the investigating joe biden and joe biden's son, hunter biden, overall these issues and raising questions of the origins of the mueller probe all in one conversation. >> rather direct link from rudy giuliani and lawyer barr that the president makes in this phone call that the notes of the phone call that were yesterday is one of the startling aspects of it. he's basically putting the two of them on his team in this biden/ukraine question and asking the president of ukraine to help them out which i mean the president's private lawyer and the attorney general have specifically different job descriptions or should.

>> and wendy sherman, the question of u.s. ambassador of ukraine, tell me a little bit of that. she departed the state department under a very cloudy circumstances at the same time is rudy giuliani quote envoy. sm sm >> she was a career professional, she was a person of enormous character and fine quality and new language is in the area had been a long-term foreign service officer and was highly thought of. being the officer of ukraine is very tough, you have to work very hard. she felt she could not follow through on what the president is talking about. yovanovitch. >> if you don't tell al line for the president of the united states even if he wants you to do something illegal or even if

he wants you to deal with his private attorney, you will be as the president says in this phone call in essence punished. >> you say being investor of ukraine is stuff and requires professionalism. this is a tough neighborhood as our own bill neely discovered when he was covering an ongoing conflict back in february. sfo >> watch. >> ukraine fighting to survive. its troops take us to the front line where they are battling russian separatists. we sprint across open ground and in to trench warfare and extraordinary vision of world war i in today's europe. a five-year war almost forgotten boo by the world. >> that explains in part why president trump had so much leverage over the new leader in freezing the $400 million in

weapons that congress approved. >> absolutely. the leader who was elected on anticorruption platform as well assaying he'll stand up to russia wanted the backing of the american president with not just words but weapons. so he was going to confront russia and have that military aide withheld under circumstances or clearly confusing to the ukraine leader was very deep blow for him. that was the first thing that he says to the u.s. president in that call. >> we have to leave it there. wendy sherman and anne gearan. we'll be right bag. back.

right now the president is talking about impeachment. let's watch. >> i don't know whether or not they'll have time to do any deals. we were working on guns, gun safety. they don't even talk -- all they're talking about is nonsense. we released something today that was fantastic and you will look at that. it is all fake stuff that the media makes up of the democrats. the democrats and the media are one of the same, they're partners. i want to thank you. mta, you can tell lightize, are they going to take a vote? it is approved by mexico and it is a great trade deal.

nafta was a horrible trade deal. it replaces nafta. he termina we terminate nafta. it is good for manufactures and everybody. even the union wanted because they always hated nafta. the union wants it. they're all fighting with themselves, we'll see. if it happens, it happens. when we take over the house next year we'll do it our way. we'll get it to make it everyn e better. do you have a comment on that, usmca? >> that was the president, he's in a meeting with the prime minister of japan. he's talking about japanese trade deal referring to his trade negotiators. he says nancy pelosi had manufactured this crisis, wendy sherman is still with me. he's clearly striking out. >> clearly striking out. >> striking back certainly. every time he has engagement

with everyone today, this is what we are going to hear about because he just can't contain himself. he's just going to lash out in ways that american public are not going to understand and they're beginning to see it for what it is, just the president becoming unhinged and that's not good for national security at the bottom line here. our national security at stake of what he's doing and it is putting us all in danger. >> anne gearan, you and i have covered the u.n. in the chamber, in covering the u.n. to have the president of the united states under fire this way is on display. >> yes, and the rest of his day looks like the regular day of the american president, he's talking about trade and venezuela and he's doing things that the american president should and wants to be seen doing on that world stage engaging on democracy and trade issues and all kinds of other

important things and this over shadows it. >> he's going to have a new conference at 4:00. that does it for us, thanks to our guests. follow us online and on facebook and twitter. here is ali velshi for "velshi & ruhle." >> thank you, andrea. coming up this hour on "velshi & ruhle," an historic story that is shaken the presidency. new evidence that the president of the united states asked ukraine leader to investigate the biden family one week. we got the white house's memo indicating flagrant violations of the constitution. and any moment now, democrats could hit the super majority needed to vote on article of impeachment. we are a few people shy of the 218 members of the house required. we'll have the latest reaction from congress adam schiff to a classic mob shake down and republicans now are speaking out including mit romney who called