i'm going to thank frank, elise, carol and matt. my colleague chuck todd's going to pick up our coverage of the president's press conference. >> -- the beef and all of the different things, pork, very big on pork. but if you look and you see, i actually think they put out a statement. they're starting to buy very heavily our ag again. they want to make a deal. the question is do we want to make a deal? >> if smc doesn't pass through congress, is that the end of nafta? >> i don't want to answer that question but you know how i feel about nafta. i think nafta is the worst trade deal ever made. i also think the world trade organization was not one of the greats. not one of the greats. that was the creation of china which went like a rocket ship from the day they signed. it was terrible. no, we're going to find out. that's going to be a very interesting question. with nancy and chuck and all of

these people focussing on the witch hunt because they can't beat us at the ballot. they can't beat us at the ballot and they're not going to win the presidential. we have great polls. we have internal polls that are -- ohio, iowa, pennsylvania's looking good, north carolina. we just won two races that a lot of people thought we were going to lose both of those races. one was down 17 points three weeks before the race and he ended up winning by a substantial margin. by a substantial margin. dan bishop. then we had a second race, as you know, and he was up one or two points and he ended up winning by, what was it, 25 points or some incredible. i'll ask you folks. i don't want to be inaccurate. we have breaking news, trump exaggerated. but he won by many, many points. and he was leading by maybe two, maybe three, but he won by in the 20s. so it's been -- so we're looking

great in north carolina. looking great in florida. and you had one or two congressmen, democrats saying, listen, we can't beat him at the election, so let's impeach him. right? didn't you hear al green. that's a beauty. he's a real beauty, that guy. but he said very distinctively, it was all over the place. i don't know, they're trying to lose that tape i guess. but he said we can't -- essentially he said we can't beat him. let's impeach him. that's pretty -- that's pretty dangerous stuff. steve, go ahead. >> thank you, sir. you had expressed some concerns about the precedent of releasing the transcript -- >> yeah, i don't like it. >> why did you go ahead and do it? >> because i was getting such fake news and i thought it would be better. now they're asking for the first phone conversation. i'll release that, too, if that's important to you. i had a cons previous -- on a previous election plateau that he had hit.

the current president hit a couple of different plateaus, and i spoke to him previous to the call that we released. which was a very innocent call. very, very innocent. very nice call. and as he said, we were -- i wasn't pushed, meaning pressured. he wasn't pressured at all. but i don't like the concept of releasing calls because when a president or a prime minister or a king or a queen calls the united states you don't like to say, gee, we're going to release your call to the fake news media and they're going to make you look like a fool. what happens is it's hard to do business that way. you want to have people feel comfortable. so i hated it, but you folks were saying such lies, such horrible things about a call that was so innocent and so nice. in fact, lindsey graham said to me when he read it, it was very interesting, he's a good man, he's a smart man. he said i can't believe it. i never knew you could be this -- really nice to a person.

he said i cannot believe it. you were so -- i didn't think you had that in you to be so nice. i was nice. i'm nice to a lot of people. people don't understand that. but i was. he was shocked that it was such a nice call. he said there is nothing here. and all fair people say the same thing. but i don't like the precedent, steve. i don't like it where you're dealing with heads of state and to think that their call is going to be released. but i felt that -- and, you know, we spoke to ukraine about it. mike actually called up his counterpart and we spoke to ukraine about it because we wanted to -- because it could have been -- if they didn't want us to do it, we would not have done it. but he actually said that was a very innocent call. you can release it all you want. >> and are you now braced to a long impeachment saga? >> well, i thought we won. i thought it was dead. it was dead. the mueller report, no obstruction, no collusion, you

look at all the things that happened. corey lewandowski was fantastic the other day as a person that they have been tormenting. you look at all the people that they've tormented. all the legal fees. people came here with bright eyes. they wanted to make life so great for other people and they left where they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that they didn't have and it's a sad thing what these democrats have done to ruin lives is so sad. i've seen people with only good intention, they came to washington because they wanted to make the united states and the world a better place. and they went home, they were dark. they got hit by mueller's subpoenas. i think there were 2,500 subpoenas or some ridiculous number. 500 people were interviewed and yet they don't interview joe biden? and his son? if you're a democrat you have automatic protection. that's years and years of people

putting in -- certain people into positions. but when you look at all of the -- all of the trauma that these fakers have caused. and the press, look, the press is -- much of the press is not only fake, it's corrupt. these stories they write are corrupt they're so wrong. and they know that. you know, it used to be -- i used to get great press until i ran for politics. i used to be the king of getting good press. i was very good at it. i got good. they covered me well for what otherwise i probably wouldn't be here. once i ran i said, boy, this is incredible. but if you see the way they treat my family -- used to be treated great. my family works so hard. the people that work with me. these people, all of these people, they work so hard. they've done such -- look, we have the greatest economy we've ever had. we have a military, $2.5 trillion. we've rebuilt our military. you don't hear the vets complain. we got choice approved. it couldn't be approved. but when you see what happened

with the viciousness, and when you see little adam schiff go out and lie and lie and stand at the mic. smart guy, by the way. stand at the mic and act like he's so serious. and then he goes into a room with nadler and they must laugh their asses off. they must laugh their asses off. but it's so bad for our country. people have said -- rush limbaugh, great man, sean hannity said it, a lot of people have said it, mark levin. they said they don't know if one man anywhere in the world with all the men they know or woman that could handle what i've had to handle. and i think that's true. but i handle it. to me it's like putting on a suit. all right. how about one more question -- question on the economy. a question on the economy. go ahead. >> sir, hi. >> go ahead. >> hi, mr. president. vpi tv from caracas, venezuela.

>> wow. how are you doing over there? >> pretty bad. our situation is pretty bad. >> i would say pretty bad, yeah. it's sad. >> but we are fighting. >> it was one of the great countries and one of the richest countries not so long ago, 15 years ago. it's incredible. >> but we are going to make it. >> i agree with that. and we're helping you. >> yeah. >> we're helping you. >> yeah, i know be, and thank y >> go ahead. >> i have two questions to take advantage of this. maduro travelled to russia and -- to north korea. two of the most antagonist nations in the u.s.' interests. what can be done to contain this -- what are they looking for in that country and because the special envoy said that the russian are willing to negotiate. this is one question. and the other, mr. president, you say that the socialists is one of the biggest challengers.

you said yesterday in the united nations. but the region is far from safe. maduro's still a dictator full in power, in argentina and brazil are under threat about the socialists and populists. are you worried about it? >> well, i just say that socialism will never happen in the united states. can't happen in the united states. and venezuela, unfortunately, i have to use your country as the example of what socialism can do, how it can tear the fabric of a country apart. because i know a lot about venezuela. i've had many, many friends of mine come from venezuela. they live many of them in miami. a certain section of miami. i won't say the section because they'll say i'm thinking about my business but i'm not. they are fantastic people. they liked your president. they vote overwhelmingly for me. they like what i'm doing for venezuela. we have venezuela very much in our hearts and very much in our

sights and we're watching it very carefully. and you know what i would say? we're giving millions and millions of dollars in aid. not that we want to from the maduro standpoint, but we have to because on a humanitarian -- people are dying. they have no food. they have no water. they have no nothing. no medicine. the hospitals are closed or don't even have electricity. it's so sad to see. let me just say that we have it under control. we are watching it very carefully. and we're going to be very, very -- >> russia is negotiating -- >> we're watching it very carefully, including other countries that may or may not be playing game. we're watching it very closely. >> but you know if russia is talking with u.s. or guaido, what can you tell about us? >> just put this in the back of your mind, it's all going to be fine. we know everything you said and it's all going to be fine. we're very much involved. we very much know what's going on and we're very much involved, okay?

thank you all very much. thank you. thank you very much. >> well, it's been quite a day of trump news conferences, both planned and unplanned and some let's say interesting quotes from the commander in chief these days. we're going to break a lot of this down. welcome to wednesday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington where it's another incredibly fast-moving day of breaking news. you've been listening to the president. that was the official post-united nations general assembly appearance press conference. largely evading reporter questions about the appropriateness of his efforts to get ukraine to investigate his political rival joe biden. at one point the president claimed the news was part of a hoebs explicitly meant to distract from all of his work at the united nations this week. >> the democrats did this hoax during the united nations week. it was perfect. because this way it takes away from this tremendous

achievements that we're taking care of doing, that we're involved in. in new york city at the united nations. so that was all planned, like everything else, it was all planned. and the witch hunt continues. but they're getting hit hard on this witch hunt. because when they look at the information, it's a joke. impeachment for that? when you have a wonderful meeting or you have a wonderful phone conversation? >> in some ways that was -- it was sort of embhlematic of his day when he went to create conspiracy theories nobody's ever heard of. those people have heard of that make no sense. in other points interpreting his call in a way that only he is interpreting. president trump seemed to double down on claims that he didn't do anything wrong with ukraine's president. the president went after

democrats and said speaker pelosi seems to have been tacke over by the radical left. detailing the president's july phone call with ukraine's president revealing that trump asked ukraine to investigate biden, two, investigate the russia probes origins, and, three, chase down something about a server among other things. just like sometimes when the president is doing a press conference and doesn't quite finish a thought, that is what one point in this don't call it a transcript transcript that it came through there. now, most republicans today are publicly insisting that there is no skoncandal in here. i told you this was a day of breaking news. the president today met with of all people ukrainian's president zelenskiy who told reporters he did not feel pushed by the president's requests in that phone call. and that discussion, of course, is purportedly part of the whistle-blower complaint that is finally being made available to congress, house and senate intelligence committee members are right now going -- not quite one by one but very close filing

into the skicif, the secure are where they can view classified material. they're doing that as we talk right now. and all of this is happening ahead of some potentially explosive testimony tomorrow from the inspector general who deemed that complaint urgent and credible and the nation's spy chief who initially blocked -- who they initially blocked from essentially going to congress with this whistle-blower complaint. so a lot more drama as a source has told nbc news that the spy chief, the director of national intelligence joseph maguire actually vowed to resign if he could not testify to congress. saying, quote, he never considered resigning but not that he never threatened to, for what it's worth. of course there's been a ton of political reaction today as the allegations surrounding the president are now essentially the center of a formal impeachment inquiry. we've got a lot oh gto get to, t to unpack. let me go to white house

correspondent kristen welker. she just finished up at the president's news conference in new york city. kristen, let me start with first, that look like a very tired president trump. and i know normally he avoids public events at this time of the day. you know, he keeps some odd hours so this might be one of his -- but he seemed amazingly sort of reserved, almost subdued. >> reporter: subdued and maybe some simmering anger there as well, chuck. it was remarkable because he started this event with a monologue effectively that went on for quite some time. he ticked through what he saw as his accomplishments at this u.n. general assembly. and then he only took a few questions from reporters. if you compare what just happened here to what we witnessed one year ago, it was two completely different president trumps. last year he took questions for over an hour. this year, again, only taking a few questions.

clearly on defense about the developments on capitol hill, about the fact that house speaker nancy pelosi is now officially opening an impeachment inquiry. so president trump did answer questions throughout the day, including by our own hallie jackson, about essentially how can you justify asking a foreign leader for help to investigate your political rival? eamon javers of cnbc asked him that very question. he instead of directly answering it went off on a bit of a tangent. >> right. >> reporter: and started to point the finger at his predecessor, obama. but the bottom line, chuck, this is a president who is feeling embattled right now. some of his allies think there may be some political benefit in this moment. i heard you talk about some of the republicans who put out statements today, saying nothing to see in this call. some of those same republicans are privately telling reporters, actually, they're concerned about the contents of the call. >> yep. >> reporter: some of the president's closest allies

saying, gee, i wish he hadn't done that. so i think this is a white house that realizes this is a different political moment. >> yep. >> reporter: you saw that reflected here, chuck. >> it's true. i thought it was intriguing to me that the president went out of his way to say all house republicans were going to vote with all house republicademocra the whistle-blower complaint. >> reporter: right. >> something told me they needed to do that because mccarthy probably wasn't holding the line. there were probably republicans that weren't willing to essentially vote against the democrats on that issue. so -- >> reporter: i think that's a really important point, chuck, and likely giving mccarthiy cov cover her. >> that's right. >> reporter: of course, we know the reaction has been mixed among republicans with some scratching their heads about whether or not this was a good idea to release this memo of the call. >> yep. >> reporter: and of course you and i have been talking about the fact that there's been a pretty big debate going on inside the white house about

whether or not they were going to release this. there were some officials who were concerned about -- >> yeah. >> reporter: -- what this call would show. so here we have the contents. it is quite gray and, of course, democrats are pouncing on this and saying it is highly problematic if not impeachable, chuck. >> i don't know how gray it is. anyway, kristen welker -- >> doesn't seem gray. >> i don't know if there's gray area in here, but that's very generous there. kristen welker covering the president. thanks very much. let me move to julia ainsley. she's live outside the department of justice. garrett haake is live on capitol hill for us. julia, i want to start with you because the unusual role that the justice department played here became more unusual when we saw the contents of this call, and i call it context, not a full transcript. an extraordinary amount of veiled references to our attorney general and then there were denials today from the justice department that whatever the president was claiming was not true.

walk me through this, julia. >> reporter: yeah, chuck, we have been trying to walk through that, especially starting here in the early morning with justice department officials about why they made the decision, "a," not to share the whistle-blower complaint and, "b," why they decided that this did not rise to the bar of a criminal violation for campaign finance violations. they say that right now it did not seem that the president was soliciting something of value in terms of a campaign contribution from a foreign leader. that's what he would need to do in order to violate our campaign finance law. but they are just looking at the same notes you and i are looking at about the call. they didn't go any further. they did not interview the attorney general. they did not interview the note takers. they did not interview the officials who were witnesses to this call. it's also not clear if there were other calls that they didn't look at. >> right. >> reporter: which would be obviously a key part that you would need to investigate if

you're going to be elevates this whistle-blower complaint. instead in what they lay out, as i say, that this is the purview of the justice department, not of the inspector general of the intelligence community, because it was essentially a diplomatic call between the president and a world leader. did not involve an employee of the intelligence community. although it was that employee that raised the whistle-blower complaint in the first place. but, chuck, i have to say, just by listening to the president in this press conference, what he lays out as his defenses are not the same defenses that we've heard from -- >> i know. >> reporter: -- career attorneys in the criminal division today. he said there was no quid pro quo. well, if we're all reading the same thing here, chuck, just before the president starts talking about investigations and getting his personal attorney rudy giuliani and his attorney general william barr involved, president zelenskiy says we want to continue to get military support from the united states. >> right. >> reporter: so it's hard to pull that apart and not call that a quid pro quo. that's something that the justice department simply didn't look at in their analysis.

>> yeah. >> reporter: but they stopped short. i think that is the main takeaway i've gotten from the justice department today. >> okay. >> reporter: is that they decided that based on that evidence they didn't need to go any further. >> but julia, i guess what i'm trying to understand is, what role has the attorney general played? did the attorney general call the president of ukraine? what do we know about the attorney general's role in whatever it is the president was trying to get ukraine to do? >> reporter: so the justice department says that the first time that william barr even knew about this conversation was when the whistle-blower complaint was referred to the justice department. that he was on vacation in late august when this first came through, that he was not directly involved in the opinion at the justice department, and that he was never contacted by the president to make this call. we asked them in as many ways as we could, chuck, was it also just -- can you rule out anyone from the white house contacting william barr? can you rule out anyone from the

white house contacting anyone from the justice department. >> rudy giuliani? personally? >> reporter: and that's who -- well, of course, the justice department doesn't speak for him. and that puts him in a different place. but, again, we are getting into the relationship between the president and his attorney general. >> right. >> reporter: and how he views his job description. it should not be the same job description as his personal attorney. this is someone who, yes, he nominated but works on taxpayer money. >> right. >> reporter: and is supposed to have a degree of distance from the white house. but the word from the justice department now is that william barr never got the command to go talk to ukraine about these issues. >> look, if for some reason this ends up back in the justice department, how does william barr not recuse himself now? >> reporter: we asked that very question. they said because he was never asked about this and really had no knowledge of it until it became a referral, therefore, it was fine for him not to be --

>> but yulijulia we don't know . we only have the justice department denial. wear staring here. we don't know that -- 9 president of the united states is saying one thing. so is justice saying the president is lying? >> reporter: well, right. it would be -- >> right. >> reporter: -- hard for them to say -- i guess what they're trying to say is that the president teased this, told the president of ukraine that he would contact william barr, but that he never followed up. that's essentially what they're coming down to. but what's weird, chuck, we pressed some justice department officials. did you then go interview william barr as part of this investigation? and they said why would we need to interview him? we cleared the president of campaign finance violations just based on that memo and then we're letting you know separately as a press statement that william barr only recently found out about this. >> wow. >> reporter: so it's really hard to square all these pieces right now. essentially, yes, the more we look into this we're going to

want to know a lot more about william barr's role in not only whether or not -- >> i hear you. >> reporter: spoke to the president about ukraine but also in the disclosures of this information and keeping some of this from the public. >> well, i think this shows you the tentacles of this already. the president has now implicated his state department thanks to rudy giuliani and his justice department thanks to himself. perhaps unknowingly to either department but that obviously we don't know for sure. julia, i know -- we went through a tedious back and forth there but i think people need to understand just how bizarre and unusual all of this is. garrett haake, the whistle-blower complaint is being read now. i know we've been watching. we know of folks going in and out. what are you learning? if anything yet. >> reporter: well, not a lot so far, chuck. it's mostly folks going in to look at this. this is, you know, still a classified situation, but i think there are a couple of points of note here. building off of what julia was just saying, we are so much closer to the beginning of this process than we are going to be

to the end of it. you mentioned the folks who have been implicated by association here. the attorney general by the president. the state department by rudy giuliani. i would add the vice president who the president casually suggested during that press conference the democrats should go after his phone call with zelenskiy. i imagine there are democratic committee staffers writing that down and pursuing that avenue right now. i mean, there is so much farther than democrat investigators can and likely will go with this. now in terms of people to watch, i would take issue with potentially house republicans breaking away from the president on this. you look at the house republican caucus right now. the focus that are left tend to be the diehards. >> no, i get that, garrett. i get that, but you know there are 20 or 30 who could have peeled off and he was afraid of that. that's all. >> reporter: maybe. maybe. i think the ones that are more interesting to watch are senate republicans. i was out having these conversations today mostly on the senate side. while you did see a lot of folks kind of stick to the company line here, i think i was

relieved a little bit to hear the open-mindedness of some of these republican senators, look, the house jumped the gun here but we're going to review these documents. we're going to work our way through it. i think we need to be careful here not to get caught up in the quid pro quo part of this. it starts to feel like when we talked about collusion as if that were a legally relevant term. the quid pro quo here is not in any way relevant to what the house can or cannot pursue here in terms of impeachment. >> right. >> reporter: it's just a talking point at this point and something the white house has put out to say this is not a thing we have done. that's not especially relevant in terms of what the house is chaosi choosing to investigate and how they will go forward. >> garrett haake, julia ainsley, i'm going to give you guys a couple of minutes to breathe here. i know there is reporting that needs to be done. joining me now is national security analyst michael mcfaul. and on set, matthew continetti, neera tanneder, and b

neera tanden and ben wittes. let me get to you, mike mcfaul, very quickly. i want to from the point of view of president zelenskiy. i thought today -- i thought he deserves a gold star for walking a tight rope. forget -- let's take all of our politics out of this. that guy today did his best to try to not anger president trump and not somehow takes sides in this back and forth. how do you think he handled what was a near impossible moment for him? >> i think he did well. he sounded a lot better today than he looked in that transcript, by the way, or memorandum of conversation, let's be clear. it's not a transcript. he did one very subtle thing that relates to the conversation you just had, chuck. it was a bit messy in between the ukrainian and the translation when i was listening to it, but he very subtly said to the question about whether he's looking into investigations, he said, first

of all, i'm a sovereign. we're going to handle this on our own. we're ukraine, an independent ukraine, but then he very subtly said i can't call the prosecutor general and tell the prosecutor general what to do, and he was suggesting we have rule of law. that's not the way it's supposed to work. compare and contrast that with what you all were just talking about, which is in the memorandum of this telephone call where the president says "i'm going to get the attorney general to help look into this one specific case of corrupt." i thought that was quite subtle but brilliant. >> also, i want to confirm something that i heard but this is your expertise. he talked about -- president zelenskiy did. there's two wars we're fighting here. he said a war on corruption and then -- he never says the word russia. and then trump finally does at some point, but should we -- i read something into that as if

zelenskiy was trying really hard not to get into a debate about crimea with trump in front of a bunch of focus. >> it could be. i mean, obviously he used the word russia in other statements that he made during the united nations. but he is, to your point, in this very vulnerable place. you know, president obama or even vice president pence or even secretary pompeo would say in meeting with a ukrainian it is absolutely outraging that president putin annexed crimea and is continuing this war . president trump never talks that way. he was trying to embrace and befriend president trump at the same time being firm about ukrainian sovereignty and the things that need to move forward. by the way, i think he's right, the war on corruption is also important -- >> right. >> -- as the war against russia. but the war on corruption has to be against all corruption. >> right. >> not just singling out an individual, let alone an american individual.

>> all right. guys, let me bring it to the table. mike, i'd like you to stick around. >> sure. >> you've helped write memos, interpret memos. don't call it a transcript. let's bring up full screen number three, control room. this is on the question did the president apply pressure. these are the quotes we pulled out and essentially that certainly to me it isn't implicit. it looks more explicit. i'd like you to do us a favor. i would like you to find out what happened. it the very important for you to do that if it's possible. it sounds horrible to me. we will get to the bottom of it. i'm sure you will figure it out. good luck with everything. ben wittes, is that too much cherry picking? is that unfair cherry picking? is that just an interpretation? what's fair game? >> it's actually very generous cherry picking because the sequence of events that leads to some of those lines makes them much worse. so where he says "i want you to do me a favor," what comes

before that is him saying that we've been very good to ukraine, unlike the germans who don't do anything for you. and by the way, there hasn't been a lot of reciprocity. so he says we've done a lot for you, you guys don't do anything for us, and now i want to ask you a favor. and the favor he wants to ask is not like the kind of favor that mike mcfaul would ask when he was ambassador. which is a policy delivery on behalf of the united states. the favor he asks, leveraging the power of the united states in this relationship with a country whose territory has been invaded by russia. >> right. >> the favor he asks is to intervene in our electoral process by violating the civil liberties of an american and dishing on his political opponent.

so i think you're actually being kind of generous to pull those lines out of context. the context is horrible. >> matthew, explain this, the talking points amongst trump's supporters are he didn't do anything illegal. >> mmm-hmm. >> it is not -- i found it interesting they are trying to find a way to essentially -- it seems like unite to the most broadest way you can get whether it's rob portman or jim jordan, right? which is don't talk about what the president did, try to turn it here. but this is pretty hard to ignore, is it not? >> if you look at the three impeachment episodes that proceed this, in all cases beginning with andrew johnson, the president was able to say that you have to impeach me on a legal basis. i will have to have committed a crime for you to impeach me. now the case with johnson, there was a case with nixon -- >> pause you right there. adam schiff's speaking. see if he's got some whistle-blower information.

take a listen. >> -- benefit yet of the inspector general's full analysis. but the complaint was very well-written and certainly provides information for the committee to follow up with other witnesses and documents, so we're well aware of the work that we have to do and i want to thank the whistle-blower for coming forward. i think that what this courageous individual has done has exposed serious wrongdoing and i think it a travesty that this complaint was withheld as long as it was because it was an urgent matter, it is an urgent matter, and there was simply no basis to cokeep this from the committee. and the idea that the department of justice would have intervened to prevent it from getting to congress throws the leadership of that department into further ill repute. but, again, i want to thank the whistle-blower and let the

whistle-blower know that we are going to do everything possible to protect you. thank you. >> did your address have to do with the ukrainian phone call, sir? >> adam their there, the chairman of the house intelligence committee. he was just speaking to reporters there. didn't give a lot obviously but he has seen the whistle-blower complaint. you know it's some discipline there when he didn't take a single question there at that point. matthew continetti, i'm going to repeat the question so people remember. it was -- it is -- it does seem to -- that republicans -- those that are comfortable with supporting the president here are trying to make the claim, well, he didn't do anything illegal. and you were saying -- and you were making a point about previous impeachment so go ahead. >> right. in those cases it was -- the president was impeached on the basis of committing some crime. >> a law that was on the books? >> correct. >> okay. >> what's interesting about this episode is even though there is this prospective campaign

finance violation, i actually think the democrats are going to settle for a more general abuse of power. which is not tied specifically to a crime, but just that this was an improper use of the president's authority. >> mmm-hmm. >> and he can be impeached on that basis alone. >> well, the word misdemeanor as far as the constitution's concerned was the attempt to try to cover this gray area, i think, of the law. neera, you wanted to jump in. >> i think to this issue, i think the real question is what the american people perceive as illegal acts, and i think when you read this transcript it reads like the president of the united states is using the foreign assistance money to extort a foreign country to do his dirty work against a political opponent. and i think the challenge for republicans is that it an easily understandable issue for them. whether -- it is obviously an abuse of power. it's axiomatically an abuse of

power. it is also the president using the power of the presidency to basically shake down the ukrainians. >> does it matter to you that the ukrainian president said on the record today i didn't feel pressured? now, to his credit, he was careful. he didn't say -- he didn't say -- he didn't speak for the president's intent, he just spoke that he didn't feel pressure. >> this is the exact situation we have, which is the ukrainian president is sitting next to donald trump -- >> right. >> -- who had the call with him. >> yeah. >> who controls the military that is the defense of his country against russia. which is on its sovereign territory. so i think most americans would recognize that a shaken down person often can't confess to the person who is shaking them down in front of them. >> let me bring in congresswoman katherine clark here, democrat. i appreciate you coming on. nice to see you. let me ask this because the next sort of phase of -- and we've

obviously been in rolling coverage, but the next phase of the conversation i wanted to have beginning with you was, what does this look like now going forward? what should the american public be prepared for over the next 90 days? and i say this because it does seem that everybody on your side of the aisle believes you need to sort of have a beginning and end here. that this can't sort of go on forever. >> that's right, chuck. and i can tell you that we are acting with the urgency that the whistle-blower identified. let's go back to the beginning of this story. we had a whistle-blower who issued a complaint that was found to be urgent and credible. we now have some members of congress are able to review that complaint and we will follow up. but what we know from this president himself is that he put his political gain over our national security. and that is an abuse of power. that is corruption.

that is what we just cannot tolerate. so we are going to get the facts out to the american people as expeditiously as we can -- >> yeah. >> -- and make sure that they understand everything we've seen today -- >> right. >> -- backs up what donald trump said that he did at the beginning of this week. and we need to make sure that we follow up and that we stand up for the integrity of our elections and that we stand up for the fundamentals of our democracy. >> congresswoman, yesterday speaker pelosi said the six committees will continue under the umbrella of an impeachment inquiry. that -- that sounds like a lot to try to herd into one thing. you could make the case if you have six committees looking into impeachment you don't even have one, right? it could go in all different directions. how do you -- how -- should

there be one committee that -- should all this funnel into one committee very quickly? >> i have great confidence in our six chairmen that they can manage this effectively. i think we are going to see a concentration in the intelligence committee because they are the ones that are able to read this complaint, know what documents we need to see, know what information needs to get out to the american public. but this is a process that we can manage. and at the same time we're going to continue with our agenda of working for the american people. and let me tell you why i think this is so different from what we've seen before -- >> mmm-hmm. >> -- and why i don't -- it's -- when i travelled the country during the midterms, whether i was in a red state or a blue state i found that people responded to corruption. >> mmm-hmm. >> they want to know we're going to be putting the issues of health care, of infrastructure, of fighting gun violence --

>> right. >> -- on the table here in congress. and they understand that this when you're talking to a foreign government -- >> right. >> -- asking them to do a favor to investigate a private american citizen, that is corruption. and that is using not only the oval office but also involving the department of justice in it. >> reportedly the president talked to the speaker yesterday morning about some other legislation as well as this a little bit. while you're doing this impeachment inquiry do you think it's realistic that you guys are going to be able to deal with lowering prescription drug prices? for instance. >> we are going to keep reaching out to this president and to the do nothing senate and saying let's get going with the american people's agenda. we have passed 250 pieces of legislation. some of them are major. about 50 of them.

and what is happening is they are languaishing. we are waiting for the president to stand up and say enough of this gun violence in the streets. we had a rally today and constituents were in mitch mcconnell's office begging him for the sake of the children that they've lost to gun violence to hold a vote. it is long past time that we stop the silence -- >> mmm-hmm. >> -- and put these families and the security of our communities first. it is not our fault that the president has pushed us through his malfeasance here, his abuse of power to this place where we are. >> congresswoman, very quickly, should recess be cancelled for the next two weeks? should you guys stay -- stay in session to deal with this other matter? >> i can tell you what's going to happen is that the work of

this investigation will continue whether we are -- >> right. >> -- officially here or not. whether the -- >> so recess won't be cancelled? already. so it sound like recess is not being cancelled is what you're saying? >> i have not heard that it is cancelled. >> gotcha. katherine clark, democrat. much appreciated you coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you, chuck. >> mike mcfaul, if -- explain if the intel committee wants to hear this phone call, who has it? who controls it? where do these recordings live? >> well, i'm not sure there are recordings, chuck. >> is that right? okay. >> maybe in the trump era there is -- when i worked at the white house i took lots of -- >> you guy did not record these calls? >> here's how it worked when i was there. i want to be specific just for the phone calls i was a part of.

we would have a phone call with putin or medvedev or another leader in that part of the world in the white house situation room. there would be people listening in transcribing the call. i would be on the phone in the oval office also taking notes in russian and english, and then we would get the transcript and i would clean the transcript up and then we would decide, by the way, who to distribute it to. again, to go back to your earlier conversation about the attorney general, lots of times, especially if the attorney general was invoked in the conversation that he most certainly would have been on our distribution list. >> well, that's interesting. so if you had heard the attorney general's name mentioned by the president you're -- it would have automatically been sent at that time it might have been eric holder, loretta liynch, whoever, automatically they would get a memorandum of the call? >> i don't want to say automatic.

we would make a decision, usually the national security adviser and me who would get a copy of the memorandum. in our era. things are very different in the forum era. most certainly if the attorney general was invoked and tasked to do something by the president, as is the case in their transcript or this memorandum. most certainly eric holder would have seen that. >> i want to come to the point of mitt romney. it's interesting because he seems to be one of the few senate republicans talking today. i think part of it is he agreed to be part of the atlantic's festival this week. so probably cancelling wasn't an option there. but first garrett haake caught up to him. and mitt romney's initial reaction to this memo was, frankly, no different than neera's. take a listen. >> i did read the transcript. it remains troubling in the extreme. it's deeply troubling. >> reporter: what do you do beyond be troubled with it, though? >> well, there is a process that the house is pursuing. the senate is also looking at

the testimony of the whistle-blower, so there is an evaluation of gathering more facts. >> reporter: should republicans be speaking out more about this? >> i can't speak for my colleagues. i can only speak for myself. >> well, mitt romney was asked the question again at that said atlantic festival and he actually gave an answer as to why he thinks other republicans aren't talking. take a listen. >> i think it's very natural for people to look at circumstances and see them in the light that's most amenable to their maintaining power. and doing things to preserve their power. >> i agree. >> i told you. mitt romney, your best friend -- >> not my best friend but, i mean, i think lots of democrats have said republicans are not acting in the country's interests or acting to maintain power. i think that's basically what mitt romney's saying. >> one of the few house republicans not named justin amash also happens to be a utah republican. there is a pattern here that i think we see that the mitt

romney wing of the party, maybe it's just the utah republican wing of the party, remains the most skeptical of this president. >> but, look, one of the problems that the president is going to have with this transcript is this is five pages. it's really easy to read. >> it's one topic, too. >> the offense is contained within the five pages in his own words and he released it. and so if you're mitt romney, it's a little bit -- you can't blame it on a witch hunt, right? or the deep state. you can't say this is the fake news media. this is a white house released document. and so when you end up having to answer questions about it, it's a little hard to say, oh, that's fine, that doesn't bother me. >> matthew, is there a place that republicans can find that is basically condemning of the president without impeaching him? and is that a place that -- is that a place --

>> let me just tell you where they are now. >> what i'm saying is is that a place corey gardner can find and survive? >> it will be a difficult position for senators like corey gardner and susan collins and martha mcsally if this reaches a trial in the senate. >> i think it's a nightmare for them. >> the democrats engage in this process precisely to put those at-risk seats on the record. what's fascinating here is i think both parties see some political advantage in this process going forward. >> weirdly but yes. >> and the question is, is one of them wrong? are they both wrong or are they both right? we just don't know. you think about what happened with kavanaugh in 2019. >> we don't know. >> you have two different electorates responding in two different ways. >> there are so many unusual ways that we don't quite know, we don't the exhaustion point of the american public. we don't know so many aspects of this. we think we know, but in fairness, it's the trump era. >> i would agree we don't know.

i would just say about ben's point and other points, this fits a pattern of behavior and it's understandable to the public. >> yeah. >> in ways other things haven't been understandable. >> let me bring in delaware senator chris coons. he's on the senate judiciary committee. but he's of course a very close ally of the vice president's who is at the center of this. senator coons, this is a real challenge for your friend, the former vice president. the more he defends himself the more he could help keep this story in the news, and at the same time -- like i said, this is a real challenge for the biden campaign in general. what's your -- what's your sense of how to handle this? >> chuck, i think this is a challenge for all of us. i think it's a challenge for those of us who serve in congress to make sure that the house proceeds in a deliberate and responsible way that shows that this is about following the law and protecting the

constitution, not about partisan politics. i think it's a challenge for the media to do a good job as you did yesterday of focussing on the facts and on what donald trump has now released in terms of a call summary and what happened on that call with president zelenskiy of ukraine. and not being distracted by repeated -- >> yeah. >> -- misstatements and untruths said by either giuliani, trump's personal attorney, or by president trump himself. so this is a challenge for all of us. you're right, it's also a challenge for the biden campaign. but one that should reemphasize, i think, one of joe's greatest strengths as a candidate, which is he has more experience in the international realm and in handling delicate, challenging issues of foreign relations than the rest of the democratic field combined. >> yeah. >> watching president trump speak at the u.n. today, i just kept imagining, what if that had been president biden, what a difference it would have made if he addressed the united nations yesterday. >> senator, you used an interesting word here about the house.

you hoped that they would have a deliberate process. but i imagine you also hope it doesn't drag, too. what is your ideal timeline here? i mean, this is unusual. i mean, part of me wishes we could get the founders up here and say, okay, and say, okay, would you -- 15 months before the election, do you use the impeachment process, right? this is not an easy call, is it not? >> that's right, chuck. here's what i have often said about the question of removal through impeachment over the last year or two. i serve in the senate. so unlike virtually any other trial we could imagine, we actually know the jury. we know who would sit in judgment over the president and we know that they will not remove him. so i have argued with my colleagues -- >> do you know that? do you know that for sure? >> yes. >> you've heard mitt romney -- i mean, look, is there more stuff that could come out? that could switch things? >> yes. yes. >> i mean, do you know for

sure -- you do? >> chuck, let me -- i'll answer your question there. we have not yet heard the substance of the whistle-blower allegations. having read the summary, not a transcript, of the conversation between presidents trump and zelensky, i think it is just jaw dropping how clear it is that president trump was trying to seek the help of a foreign power in interfering in our own domestic politics, asking them, as a favor to him, to begin an investigation into his leading political opponent for the 2020 election. so it is possible that the whistle-blower's statement will reveal further details than we currently have in front of us. but i will also say, i'm very skeptical that the republican majority in the senate would actually ever vote to remove president trump. so to your basic question there, chuck, i hope that this will proceed swiftly, appropriately, in a way that gets to the bottom of the relevant facts, but that does not take a year or year and a half to reach a conclusion.

>> but you sound like you think that a trial would be useful, even though we know the verdict. >> well, the argument i've made a number of times is, i think we should change the jury, the jury should be the electorate and the electorate should ultimately render judgment on president trump. but i will tell you in recent days, these new developments about the call with the president of ukraine and the possibility of further developments once the whistle-blower's complaint rp kno are known, may change my assumptions about that. we have a currently serving president clearly using the powers of the office for his own personal political gain and trying to drag the department of justice entitle as well to boot. >> senator chris coons, democrat from delaware, i'm going to let you go. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> much appreciated. so, i went back because i didn't believe this. steve kornacki said this the other day. because i'm sitting there going, are they really going to be able to do an impeachment, a trial, and a verdict before the iowa caucuses? >> no problem.

the clinton impeachment was fast. >> yes! i went back, thanks to our friends at wikipedia. october 8th is when they announced the inquiry, so after this date, january 7th, the trial began in the senate. february 9th, the verdict. so that would be a few days after the caucuses, but i didn't think you could do it before nfl season ended. maybe they can. is this a useful exercise at this point? is everybody sort of all in here? or do you think we still got a long way to go before we get to the filing of these articles? neera? >> there's a lot of information to have. >> no, understand. >> really, in 24 hours, we have the white house releasing notes from a call that seems pretty indicting of them. and there's talk that they were forced to do it because people may quit or people -- there's concerns about what could be happening. and so i think there's a very -- this is a moving event. we could know a lot more by

monday than we know today. and this is part of the reason why an impeachment inquiry was important. is because the white house is obstructing every other legitimate way to get information, so the impeachment inquiry -- the white house actually requires an impeachment inquiry to get the information. and let me make one last point. the department of justice is not a neutral actor in any of this. seems pretty implicated itself, which is the fact that the department of justice is corrupted means it is more requiring of a house investigation to act. >> september, neera, now you have actually, to me, introduced a more complicating factor into this, right? we've got justice, you're right, state. ben, i'm not convinced they can get -- especially if they're going to do this over six committees. i mean, is the -- the clinton impeachment was done quickly. will these house democrats be efficient about this? >> look, whether they will is one question. whether they can is a different question. and if the answer -- if the question is, can you do this

quickly, the answer to that is yes. there is a huge amount of information on the table. and drawing articles of impeachment is is fundamentally a writing exercise. you can write a chunk of it off the mueller investigation, off of the report. you can write a chunk of it off the five-page document here. >> i do think some democrats don't want mueller part of this. >> it's fundamentally an exercise in making the decision and asking people to vote. and that you can do relatively quickly. >> what does this send up looking like? does this end up looking like a partisan, where literally it's a split-screen nation? >> that's what it's looking like right now. i think most republicans do not believe the contents of that memo are reason to impeach and remove the president. >> by the way, i noticed that lindsey graham's words have been very careful here. he is not -- he's trying not to condone what happened. he's just simply saying, i don't

think it should be thrown out for that. >> that's right. >> it is interesting, some of these folks are trying to create a rationale for this. >> once you open up this impeachment, you don't know where things are going to go, and you see it in the president's the white house's own reaction to this swirl of events, that you're putting out information -- >> doesn't it look like they're flailing a bit here? two days ago, they're putting out nothing. and then oh, all of a sudden, oh, you're serious about this impeachment? okay, have this. >> i think they're confused like a lot of people in washington. so we don't know if something else rises that may change political opinion. i can tell you right now, though, mitt romney does not represent public opinion. >> i will say that, but having gone through an impeachment process and what you see in this white house, which is very different from prow previous white houses have dealt wit -- more accommodating than this one. >> my point is the fact opposite. the fact that they put out this transcript and this was their

exoneration, at least in their minds, because the white house put it out, i think should scare republicans of what the dark facts are here. >> they don't know what they don't know. >> and you know, republicans -- i believe mitt romney doesn't speak for the entire caucus. the question is not the base republicans of the country. it's now the people who are up. >> are there 20 republicans in the senate. mike mcfaul, look, i'm not going to sit here and say that palo alto is america, no offense to palo alto, but how does this -- you know, i always say, for us in washington, everything that is happening is very acute. and it feels urgent and of the moment. i do wonder what this looks like from 30,000 feet. i do wonder what this looks like from 3,000 miles away. and i do wonder how many people who may not like president trump may say, the election is in 14 months, i'm curious what elizabeth warren and joe biden are doing. >> well, again, palo alto is not the rest of the country, but i have lots of relatives inmont

who i have talked to about this. and i think it's a good point. to you all, this is earth shattering and everybody, you know, my twitter feed and email from washington is on fire. out here, people, this is just, it's just the same-old, same-old. that's what it feels like. it's not my personal view. and i want to correct the record for a little bit. we need to start saying, the president used taxpayer's money to try to leverage a foreign government to help him. remember, this is not just something he gets to hand out by himself. this is my money. and when it's framed that way, maybe you'll get some leverage. but i think there will be lots of people that it feels like, this is just the same as it ever was. there's nothing distinct about this, because they raun thun th all the time. >> by the way, rudy giuliani, as a private citizen here is playing some sort of diplomatic role, perhaps, we don't know. >> crazy. >> can you give me an example that you can think of where a private citizen who was a

personal friend of the president played any role, even if it was a positive role, that you can think of, back multiple administrations back? i'm just curious, to try to -- how unusual is this? >> there are snainstances like that, chuck. for instance, jesse jackson went to cuba. we've had independence liaisons, envoys go to do certain things. it's highly unusual, but also, h highly coordinated with the policy of the administration in question. and what is so extraordinary about this moment is there's no policy coordination. you know, i used to work -- writing talking points for the president for these kinds of phone calls. you would never have crowd strike being thrown in there. you would never have this stuff being thrown in. and that's what is deeply troubling about this process. and i know, deeply demoralizing, for the people inside the administration, inside the government, trying to do the work of the american people. >> mike mcfaul, matthew

contine continenti, neera tan denim, so many others including garrett haake and kristen welker and julia ainsley, quite a day. and guess what, there's more tomorrow! we'll see some testimony tomorrow. so that's all we have for tonight! we've got that more tomorrow. "meet the press daily," "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. good evening, ari. >> good evening, chuck. we come on the air tonight learning brand-new details for the first time ever of what democrats say is president trump's impeachable conduct. we'll get into this story from every angle tonight. what the notes from this call, now newly released, mean about what the president asked from ukraine. the new con tanew contagion abo was pulled into impeachable conduct. tonight, i have something for you we've been working on. it's a special report on what makes conduct by the president impeachable with the new reporting