brand-new book, "blowout," the one and only rachel maddow. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now with the aforementioned rachel maddow. congratulations on the book. >> thank you very much. sounds kind of heavy when you put it that way. >> well, it is, but it's important. i got to say timing wise, really seriously, timing wise about this sort of like inherent connection between democratic decline, fossil fuel across globe, does that look timely right now. >> and what happened to russia what the way russia's been using ukraine and how natural gas fits into all of it. i did not write the book to speak to this moment, but it is coming out at a time that is weirding even me out. thank you very much for putting it out about that. good luck with ted freaking cruz. that's going to be amazing. >> yeah, i think it will be interesting. a lot happening this week. we'll see what happens. >> thank you, my friend. good luck.

thanks you to at home for joining us this hour. it's a friday, so you know what that means. we have so very merchandise news to get to tonight. it does feel like sort of gigantic pieces of news are coming from a glacier somewhere and splashing into an ocean that's already filled with gigantic news stories. we're having another one of those nights. if you have been following the impeachment proceedings over these past four days, if you have been following the whistle-blower complaint over the president's dealings with ukraine, the president basically trying to involve ukraine in helping himself get re-elected in 2020, one of the big revelations from this whistle-blower complaint that was unsealed yesterday, oh, my god, was that only yesterday? was the claim that this was, quote, not the first time under this administration that a transcript of a presidential call had been placed into a code word level, high security system solely for the purpose of

protecting politically sensitive information even though that code word protected secure database is only supposed to be holding national security sensitive information. the whistle-blower was basically claiming that after this very worrying phone call in which the president we now know asked ukraine to help him in his re-election effort against his potential opponent, joe biden, we know that that happened. we know that the whistle-blower got it on good authority that that call happened, described it basically exactly along the lines of what we eventually saw when the transcript of that call came out. but when the whistle-blower complaint itself was unsealed yesterday, it was a big surprise for us to learn this very specific description of how white house officials, including white house lawyers, had tried to cover it up. they had taken the record of that presidential phone conversation and not put it on the server where regular -- where information like that would be regularly stored. they put it in a very, very

high-security code-word protected top-level stand alone security system that's not networked to any other thing, apparently just for the purpose of limiting the ability of other people inside the government to see what happened on that phone call. not because it was national security sensitive, not because it was about some covert action or code word protected intelligence program. but simply because they had to make sure that nobody could find out the president did this on this call. again, the whistle-blower saying in the whistle-blower's complaint that according to u.s. officials, according to white house officials who talked to the whistle-blower about this matter, this was not the first time white house officials and white house lawyers had taken a step like that to hide essentially, to bury records of a presidential phone call with a foreign power. and that, of course, teed up this big question. well, what else is in the vault? what else have they hidden on that server? what else has this white house tried to lock down?

what other evidence of the president's behavior or transcripts of the president's calls have they tried to wall off from access even for most u.s. officials and cabinet-level officials, not because they were national security sensitive, because they would make the president look bad because they reflect the kind of behavior that might get the president impeached? well, just before we got on the air, just moments ago "the washington post" published this new scoop having to do with not the phone call to the ukrainian president, which has led to the impeachment proceedings this week, but rather the infamous meeting that took place in the oval office in 2017 between president trump and two senior officials from russia. this was may 2017. it was a day after donald trump fired james comey. you will remember, surprise, what's the russian foreign minister and ambassador doing in the oval office with the president that day? here's what the "washington post" is reporting now.

quote, president trump told russitwo senior russian officials in a 2017 oval office meeting that he was unconcerned about moscow's interference in the u.s. election in 2016 because the united states did the same in other countries. an assertion that prompted alarmed white house officials to limit access to the president's remarks to an unusually small number of people. the po"post" citing three forme officials with knowledge of the matter. quote, a memorandum summarizing the meeting was limited to a few officials with the highest security clearances in an attempt to keep the president's comments from being publicly disclosed. according to this new story in "the washington post," president trump lamented to russian foreign minister sergey lavrov that all this russia stuff was debt mental to relations to russia. he means the interference of russia in our immediately previous election.

it is not clear if a memo document that go may 10, 2017, meeting with lavrov and kislyak was placed into that top secret code word protected server where the transcript of the president's call with ukraine was apparently stashed, but we do know that access to this transcript with the russian officials from 2017 was, quote, restricted to a very small number of people. you will recall, of course, that this was the meeting in which president trump not only said that firing james comey relieved great stress on him, but he also, much to the surprise of u.s. government officials and intelligence officials and allies, this is the meeting in which trump revealed highly classified information, code-word-protected intelligence information that exposed a very sensitive live source of intelligence on isis. this was the same meeting in which he admitted that he fired

fbi director james comey because it relieved great pressure on him, the same meeting where he gave one of our allies incredibly sensitive intelligence sources against isis and apparently according to "the washington post" tonight that was also a meeting in which he told the russian government, told emissaries from the russian government that he didn't mind what they did in terms of the u.s. election. what is remarkable about this story is that that was may 2017 and we're now finding out more about what was said in that meeting. i mean we have had a special counsel investigation into the president's interactions with russia around the russian election interference in 2016. this never came up. but in the context of the impeachment inquiry, that has starred this week into the way the president tried to basically involve the nation of ukraine in interfering with the next election in 2016, for us to learn that records of that conversation which have led to the president's eventual impeachment now, records of that

conversation were basically hidden away, and that the same treatment or similar treatment of some kind was also used to hide records of that may 2017 oval office meeting. it's stunning what we didn't know before, but it's very stunning what we now know tonight. joining us is one of the reporters behind this breaking news, shane harris, reporter for "the washington post." boy, he has been very busy this week. mr. harris, thank you for joining us on short notice. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> i'm absorbing this because you just posted it. let me ask you if i got anything wrong or missed anything in the way i described that? >> no, you got it right. >> in terms of the content, the additional content of the president's conversation with those russian officials, this is a pretty inflammatory statement that he told these russian officials that he was unconcerned about moscow's interference in the u.s. election. your source, you and your

colleagues' source for that according to the lead in this story is three former officials with no clknowledge of the matt. were the president's comments included in where notes after this event took place? >> that is our understanding because the memorandum that was made documenting this was almost immediately as it was described to us restricted to an unusually small number of people. the white house actually already implemented a system in which these memos of conversations that the president had with foreign leaders were restricted to an even smaller number of people than usual in large part to avoid press leaks. this one with lavrov and kislyak we're told was restricted to an even tighter number than was normal. so clearly indicated some real concern on the part of white house officials about the political sensitivities around

this. you mentioned where the president revealed information that could have exposed an intelligence source. so this caught a lot of people's attention, i think, when suddenly the paper that you would normally see about this meeting, remember, this was a huge high-profile meeting with lavrov and kislyak coming to the oval office months after the president had taken the oath, people couldn't find the record of this and that immediately set off alarm bells. but people we talked to who have knowledge of this said it was extremely close hold and really alarming because of the import of it was perceived as giving the russians some kind of green lig light. >> obviously you guys are able to report tonight on the extremely close hold nature of how that memorandum was distributed. you're able to describe to us

some of the content of that memo, which has not previously been reported, even over the course of the special counsel investigation and everything. knowing more about the distribution of the record of that conversation, knowing more about the content of the record of that conversation, i have to ask you, if you and your colleagues know where the record of this conversation is now. and if it is going to be made available for anyone who wants to investigate this? >> we don't know for sure. this was very much in the front of our minds reporting this story in light of the whistle-blower's allegations was this memo placed into the highly classified, separate network that this person describes as being in a place where the conversation with president zelensky was placed. we cannot confirm whether that was the case. but it was notable to our sources that when the memo was created or at least some record

of it was created, it just didn't go to the normal distribution chain at all. it was essentially unavailable to people who ordinarily would have been able to get access to this information, even in the already-unusuallily tight conditions that the white house created. the answer rachel, is no we don't know where the record of this call is. you rightly point out the special counsel investigated the matter. we didn't see anything about this in the report. so right now it's still a bit of a mystery to us where the records of this actually are contained. >> is it your sense, shane, and this isn't addressed directly in your reporting and you may not know this, feel free to tell me if i'm off base here. is it your sense that there has essentially been an evolution within the trump white house in terms of how they hide stuff, that there may have been an initial effort to just cut down on the normal channels by which

presidential communications would be distributed and sent around so that everybody could get on the same page. it culminated recently with this dramatic allegation reported by the whistle-blower that it's being hidden in the white house. is it your sense this evolved over time and these things might have been stashed sort of all different sorts of places over the past couple of years. >> yeah. i mean, my thinking on this is sort of evolving as we learn more. it is clear that very early on there was an awareness by the white house that information was leaking out and they wanted to tighten that up. it is not clear to me right now that it is the habit of the white house to absolutely put these kinds of things into a classified network where they can't be seen. we have at least one allegation from the whistle-blower that

that happened with the ukraine call and possibly others. but i don't know if we can say right now that it was just routine to put these memos into that very secret system. >> shane harris, national security reporter at "the washington post" joining us on very short notice and near something that's backing up, which i realize is dangerous. you take care, shane. thank you for joining us. >> thanks, rachel, bye-bye. >> remarkable reporting from "the washington post." president trump in that oval office meeting with two senior russian officials the day after he fired james comey according to "the washington post" tonight in addition to telling them that firing james comey took off a lot of pressure from him in terms of the russia stuff, "the washington post" newly reporting tonight that one of the other things the president said in that meeting was that he was unconcerned about russia having interfered in our election because no big deal, the u.s. does the same in other countries. it's remarkable to get something new about that conversation now two plus years after the fact.

it's being reported in the context of this new alarm, that is, the center of this impeachment proceeding about how presidential records, how records of the president's contacts with foreign officials are being submarine or being held according to a whistle-blower sort of misclassified in order to try to hide evidence of what the president has been doing and saying with foreign leaders. i will tell you "the washington post" reports tonight that the white house did not provide comment for this story. but i want to bring into the conversation ned price, former senior director at the national security council. he was a senior analyst at the cia. mr. price, great to have you with us on short notice. >> thank you. >> let me get your reaction to this that the white house walled off or shrank the usual access to the notes from not just the president's call with ukrainian

president zelensky, white house officials did the same with this russian official oval office meeting as well. >> i would start with "the washington post" reporting tonight, rachel. i guess i would put it this way. we don't know if this was the coverup or if this was a coverup. just another run-of-the-mill coverup in this white house. the whistle-blower was very specific in his statement that we saw for the first time yesterday saying that he heard it was not the first time that white house officials, not that they had just reduced the access of these transcripts, but they had actually placed these on this special stand-alone top secret code word server. we don't know if the memo of this russian conversation was actually placed on that server, so there could still well be other conversations out there that white house officials were so alarmed at that they took the extraordinary step of actually placing it on that server.

the other irony, rachel, is this conversation in 2017 between president trump and russian officials should have been held essentially at the unclassified level. there's very little we share with the russians that could betray our sources and methods. but if you think about it, this is a memorandum that might be stored on that server from president trump leaked to them information that could be considered code word classified. so i think there are a lot of questions we don't know about this, and i think there's still a blinking red light from that whistle-blower complaint that there could be other transcripts that have been spirited away. >> one of the reasons i wanted to ask you about this specifically, i was intrigued by some other "washington post" reporting from late last night that when it comes to that super secret server that's disconnected from all networks, that's a stand-alone unit that's supposed to be set aside for the

most sort of secret information in the government intelligence programs that are covert action stuff, stuff that really has to be protected, when it comes to putting stuff onto that server a senior white house official making a decision to do that, a, would have needed access to be able to do it, would have had to be the kind of person allowed to access that server, but according to the post they would need to make a formal written request in order to make a transfer of a document from a more normal, less-secure server into that super top-secret one. let me ask if you believe that's true, that there would be a written record of who wanted to put stuff on that server, and if so, doesn't that driveway a paper trail in terms of whodunit in terms of this coverup? >> i suppose i would say yes, but i would claw caveat there. in a normal white house there would be a paper trail. in the previous white house certainly there would have been a written request of this nature. but just to put a finer point on

it, rachel, this is a system that is administered by the intelligence directorate within the national security staff. it's a relatively small team, no more than a handful of people, nearly all of whom come from the intelligence community. they have expertise and extraordinary experience in dealing with covert action and the most sensitive information in the government's possession. so essentially they are trusted to do that. we saw some interesting reporting earlier today, i believe it was, that national security council lawyers, according to the white house trying to explain this away, that the deputy lawyer on the national security council staff actually authorized that. if you believe the white house statement, he did so in order to protect classified information. here's what the white house didn't say, rachel, is that the deputy nsc legal adviser, he reports to the national security adviser, but that role is also dual hatted. this person reports to the white

house counsel, which is a political position. you can make the case those around president trump, including his counsel who has been at the center of any number of recent stories, could have ordered this clear violation of an executive order, by the way, to upgrade the classification solely to protect something that is deemed politically embarrassing or explosive or even at worst to hide illegal activity on the part of the president. >> if all that happened, let me just ask you breevlgs do you think there will be a way to unwind who did what? do you think this sort of thing leaves traces? >> well, normally, rachel, it's the coverup, not the crime. i think in this case the coverup may actually lead to the crimes because the whistle-blower complaint was very specific in pointing to a location where these transcripts are. if the house oversight committee -- i'm sorry. if the house intelligence committee which last night issued a preservation order to the national security counsel staff to see what transcripts are there, there will probably

be some sort of trail as to how they got there. the national security council staff is meticulous in its record keeping and in its protocols. it was usually to our chagrin when we were in the system, but it may be to our collective benefit. >> ned price, former cia officer, nsc spokesperson. thank you so much for being here. invaluable to have you on a night like this. >> thank you. >> much more to come tonight. stay with us. h more to come tont stay with us our dad was in the hospital. because of smoking. but we still had to have a cigarette.

had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. fight for blast offs fight for piggyback rides fight for 7 am makeouts. every year, walgreens helps millions of people fight the flu. fight to protect the ones you love. walgreens. be a flu fighter. get your free flu shot today at your neighborhood walgreens. - [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this.

but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪

we do have friday nights around here where we get lots of news stories all at once. honestly it feels like for the last four days or so it's been every day, all day long new breaking news once an hour. today we got this bluntly titled statement from three house committee chairs. saechlkts mike pompeo subpoenaed for ukraine documents as house committees accelerate impeachment inquiry. the chairs of the foreign affairs oversight committee say two weeks ago they demanded pompeo produce documents related to the president's call with the ukrainian president or documents related to the delay of aid to ukraine or related to rudy

giuliani or paul manafort, a compelling list of possible evidence. they didn't get any of that stuff even though they dhantd it two weeks ago. now they sent a subpoena for those documents to the secretary of state, which they say in the first line of the letter sending, quote, pursuant to the house of representatives' impeachment inquiry. they also informed the secretary of state that they're scheduling depositions starting next week with a bunch of state department officials named or referenced in the whistle-blower's complaint, people who either were involved in this scheme to get ukraine involved in the 2020 elections or may have been collateral damage. we don't yet know if those depositions are going to be just transcribed or if they're going to be taped, but they're going to happen very quickly, starting on tuesday or wednesday of next week and going right through the following week, the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 10th.

we should probably assume since these are depositions, the questioning will be down don by committee counsel rather than members of congress. also since these committees are explicitly acting in the context of an impeachment inquiry, the impolice sit and today they made an explicit threat if these officials resist or the state department tries to block these officials from going along with the depositions, that would say be construed by theo house as obstructing. we would quickly find out what kind of additional weight the impeachment inquiry gives to congressional demands, but that would open up the president himself to additional impeachable offends and other articles the house would vote on. among the ones deposed is this man, curt volcker. he's the envoy for ukraine. the whistle-blower claims he was basically caught up in rudy giuliani's pressure campaign on

the ukrainian government. giuliani and trump were both pressuring the ukrainian government to provide them things that would be of help to the if the presidency's re-election bid. immediately thereafter, the ambassador turned up in kiev following up on what giuliani and trump were demanding, trying to gride the ukrainian government in terms of how they should respond to those totally inappropriate and possibly illegal demands. i just described him as president trump's special envoy for ukraine. as of a couple hours ago, they say ex-special envoy for ukraine because just after curt volcker was told to appear for his deposition next week, he resigned just within the past couple of hours. like i said, news is moving fast. you saw that subpoena and the deposition announcements go out from three committee chairs. one of the questions we've had over the course of this week is whether one committee is going

to take the lead on this impeachment proceeding against the president. if so, which one? if congress is focused on this ukraine scandal as a matter of, you know, foreign policy, maybe it's foreign affairs because it involves a foreign country, would it be the judiciary committee since they traditionally take lead on impeachment proceedings? would it be the intelligence committee because, among other things, this whistle-blower complaint came from the intelligence community and references classified information and the mishandling, or at least strange handling of classified information? tonight house speaker nancy pelosi has written to the members of the house, the democratic members. the path forward will be centered in the intelligence committee led by chairman adam schiff. for his part, chairman schiff tells nbc news his committee has already begun reaching out to witnesses and expects to send out additional subpoenas and additional announcements of further depositions in the

course of the next week. so i planned a whole different show for tonight, but this just happened in the last couple of hours, so we're just trying to keep up. stay with us. ildren: yeah! announcer: ride the totally realistic traffic jam. ♪ beep, beep, beep, beep children: traffic jam! announcer: and the world's first never bump bumper cars. children: never bump! announcer: it's a real savings hootenanny with options that fit your budget. that's fun for the whole family. announcer: only at progressive par... maybe an insurance park was a bad idea. yeah. yep. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly)

when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums with tums smoothies. 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. panera's new warm grain full of flavor, color,. full of- woo! full of good. so you can be too. try our new warm grain bowls today. panera. food as it should be. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding?

memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

it was a really blunt way to put it, but i think that was the point. it was a month after donald trump had just been elected president. quote, americans are no wiser than the europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism,

naziism, communism. our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience. now is a good time to do so. here are 20 lessons from the 20th century adapted to the circumstances of today. that was a facebook post from a month after trump was elected. it basically broke the internet at the time. by popular demand, it soon turned into this survivor's guide of a book that likely you or someone you know have a dog eared copy of or maybe that you've been carrying around in your bag for a couple years if you're like me. it is called "on tyranny: lessons from the 20th century." it is filled with sobering advice for being a citizen in a country that is at risk. bag citizen where democratic norms and the basics of our system of government suddenly don't seem like a given anymore. it's not an activist's guide per se, it's a survivor's guide. "the new york times" advised

approaching it like a medical pamphlet on an infectious disease. quote, read it carefully and be on the lookout for symptoms. case in point, lesson number two, defend institutions. institutions help us to preserve decency. they fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. so choose an institution you care about a court, a law, a labor union, and take its side. this is from lesson 14. establish a private life. nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push your around. scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis. have personal exchanges in person. for the same reason, role of any legal trouble. try not to have hooks. this is from lesson 5. this has been stuck into me like a splinter under a finger nail. you will see why when i tell you what it is.

lessons 5 is remember professional ethics. when political leaders asset negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. it's hard to subvert a rule of law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges. authority containers need obedient civil servants. concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor. like i said, stark, right? but it is not drawn up from nowhere. it's specifically drawn up from an expert's history of other countries, other countries no dumber and no wiser than ours, that nevertheless lost their democracies at some point in the 20th century. yale professor timothy snider speaks five and reads ten different european languages. he has studied russia and ukraine for a quarter century. our country is now starting the

process because of him trying to enlist the government of ukraine against his political enemies, also apparently to muddy the waters about russia helping him win the last election. because of that, i asked professor snider if he wouldn't mind coming to the studio tonight to help give us help with this. he's joining us now, author of "the road to unfreedom." professor, thank you for being here. >> very glad. >> let me just ask you, as a historian, as a public intelligentual to talk to people about russia, talk to americans about russia, talk to us about freedom and the context of what happened in our election, how are you feeling this week? >> i'm feeling like people are understanding something which we needed to understand from the beginning, namely, that we're all in this together. a lot of the ways our democracy is going sour happened already in russia. a lot of things that the russians are doing to us involve

just kind of jollying us along. mr. trump saying, well, yeah, of course interfering with special elections okay. everybody does it. that's exactly the line which russia is trying to push. there aren't facts, there's not law, there's not justice. everything's really a joke. only power matters. what we're seeing today is how this fits together. it's not just that rush helped mr. trump to get elected, there's a certain russian way of doing politics has spread widely. >> is the idea that there's no reason for russia to be held to account for bad behavior because there is no such thing as good behavior, there is no moral leadership in the world or moral expectation in terms of how countries should behave, and the u.s. as the world's policeman, that's basically how they sold their international standing for a generation now? >> logically it makes no sense. either things are good or not good. if it's bad to invade countries

illegal, it's bad. whether it's a rock or ukraine. what you can't say unless you're a kid on a playground, he did it so it's okay for me to do it. either there are principles or there are not principles. >> with president trump and his personal lawyer, mr. rudy giuliani, apparently trying to enlist ukraine in a number of different efforts, we've been talking about it in the context of the impeachment inquiry, which is specifically about trying to either engineer or dig up something that will hurt joe biden, that will hurt the president's potential political opponent in 2020, beyond that, though, seems like they have been looking for a couple other things. they've been looking for law enforcement action against the accusers of paul manafort, people who brought forward evidence of manafort's corrupt behavior in ukraine that ended up getting him kicked off the president's campaign in 2016 that ultimately led to him going

to jail where he sits today. they're trying to undo the prosecution of paul manafort. they're also trying to undo the initial attribution of the 2016 attack to russia. they want to make it seem like maybe russia didn't attack us. why is all of this happening through ukraine? >> i'm glad you asked that question because i want to start just by reminding us all that ukraine is a real country. ukraine has real problems. for example, ukraine was invaded by russia. russia annexed ukrainian territory and has taken 12,000 mortal casualties in this wall which is about as much as vietnam for us. and the russian war in ukraine was just as unexpected. this is a country with 2 million internal refugees. but this is a place that held democratic elections the last one and this one free and fair. they have big proshz. what they need from us is to encourage them to follow the rule of law. the tragic thing, as you say,

about what's happening now is that we're doing the opposite. every aspect of what mr. giuliani and mr. trump are doing is pushing them in the wrong direction. they're urging the president of the company to be corrupt. then they're saying your old prosecutor general, who everybody agreed was the most corrupt person in the country, he should be brought back. and then you're investigative journalists, who are the good guys in this story, those people are enemies of the united states, enemies of america. they're talking about the people who actually find out the things we need to know about inequality, corruption, and war. that for me is just awful. >> the thing that is, i think, as someone who knows ukraine to get that level of ukraine, what this is going to do to them and vis-a-vis what they're going to handle in terms of russia, it's

fascinating. and so the idea that they're over there basically tuning up all the good guys and helping out -- tuning out the good guys and helping the bad guys, it's hard for me to know why there and what it is about ukraine that has become their playground in this way. >> yeah. i mean, there are a couple things going on here. first, they correctly have the instinct that ukraine and america and russia are part of one story. it's just they have it wrong how. as russia was invading ukraine in 2014, it was trying out the hybrid war strategies, the cyber war strategies it used in 2016 against us. in that sense, it is all one story and the personal connection of paul manafort, who is the adviser of both ukrainian president and the american president to be was the exclamation point at the end of all of that. so they're right it's all connected but they're wrong about how. what they're saying is, by the

way, the same thing that the russians are saying, for example, a russian senator said today what they're saying is that actually the whole thing was ukraine helping the democrats, not russia helping the republicans and mr. trump. and they're trying to build up this sort of counternarrative which they can use as a boomerang to push the other one back. there are a lot of problems with this, but the most obvious is it's just not true. they have an instinct. they can sniff out who the worst people are. they're very good at that, but they don't have their facts straight about what actually happened as they don't have a basis on which to build this zuckerkandel if you can hold on, professor, i want to ask you also how you think we're doing as a country dealing with this crisis. professor timothy schneider is our guest. we'll be right back. and a dock with a boat, maybe. why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot.

but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, every day can begin with flakes. it's a reminder of your struggles with psoriasis. but what if your psoriasis symptoms didn't follow you around? that's why there's ilumya. with just 2 doses, a majority of people were clear or almost clear. and over time, even more people were clear or almost clear. all with dosing 4 times a year... after 2 initial doses. plus, ilumya was shown to have similar risks of infections

compared to placebo. don't use if you are allergic to ilumya or any of its ingredients. before starting treatment, your doctor should check for tuberculosis and infections. after checking there is no need for routine lab monitoring unless your doctor advises it. ilumya may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. this could be your chance to leave your psoriasis symptoms behind. ask your doctor for ilumya today, for a clearer tomorrow. (baby crying) ♪ (blender whirring) ♪ (baby laughing) ♪ pampers is here to help every parent love the changes a baby brings. ♪

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ quietly running the world. creating jobs and fueling the economy. you're small business owners, and there's nothing small about your business. that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. to help your small business do big things. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. ♪ . we're back with yale history professor, timothy snyder, the author of best-selling books like "on tyranny" which became

ascensia sensation after the trump election thank you for sticking with us. because you have written a sort of survival book, a symptom diagnosis manual in terms of losing your democracy and what tyranny and authoritarianism look like when you live in country that might be sliding in that direction, i have to ask, now that we are in an impeachment crisis, we are about to impeach the president because of his contact with ukraine, asking them to get involved in our election on his behalf, what you think we should be looking for as citizens and what you think would be a strong way for us as a country and as a democracy to handle this? what are you worried about and what are you hopeful about? >> we have to take a step back and ask how trump was possible in the first place because as awful is the things he's doing are and really i think asking for foreign interference in two different presidential elections is a record that's unlikely ever

to be broken. as awful as that is, we have to asks ask, what was it about us in 2016, our electorate system, our inequality, the way we deal with the internet, our lack of local journalism, what allowed this to happen in the first place, and can we then fix that, regardless of which party we like, this kind of thing doesn't ever happen again. as far as how we've done in the medium term, i think the journalists we have left have done an excellent job. the terrifying thing is to imagine what if this happened in five or ten years when we have no journalists left? whose work is denied or repeatedly or fictionalized. we have a few left. they are the heroes of this story now, in russia, and in ukraine. the other thing is that this is fundamentally all about the rule of law. do we believe in the rule of law? the rule of law comes before a democracy, before everything else. is this man above the law or

not, or are we all subject to the rule of law. that's what's fundamentally at stake right now. >> as the house pursues impeachment, is there a way to do that in a way that is maximum mally bolstering of the rule of law in a long-standing way. >> i think there is. i think it's important to enunciate what the principles of what we're doing are all the time. i realize for political reasons it makes sense to focus on this ukraine issue because basically the president confessed to it. >> caught and then admitted it and then proved that he did it. >> yeah. if you can we have in the back of the squad car, it's like you're innocent. but that's not how it works. i understand the temptation because the whistle-blower report tells you everything you need to do. but it's important to remember this is in a larger context of a whole series of things which show score and for the idea of law. that story that just broke today telling the russians that it's okay to interfere in our elections, that's just a very large example of this notion that there isn't law, it's just

a joke, we do it e everybody does it, therefore, it's okay. if that's your idea, you're going to have oligarchy and authoritarianism. >> titanimothy snyder, thank yor coming to the studio. we'll be right back. studio we'll be right back. wow! that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa!

30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa.

prescription power. proven to work.

i have something eerie i want to show you.

in covering news stories like this one and this impeachment crisis, the last handful of national security officials you might want to talk to about it, get their perspective on how bad this stuff really is, what we should pay the most attention, to what might not be quite as important. you might want to talk to people like a susan rice who was national security adviser to president obama. she was u.n. ambassador. if you could talk to a susan rice about a story like this, somebody with that kind of experience, she could walk you through, like, a, how big deal this is, how the intelligence community would handle the bombshell news that the the president solicited help from a foreign power. what would happen with that information, what's the right way, susan rice isn't here tonight. but i want you to see this because it's freaking eerie. i did talk to susan rice in june of this year, and look what she

said. look at what we talked about in june of this year. >> if, for example, in 2020 some country, some adversary wants its way with us, does decide they are going to intervene in our election in a substantive way, they're going to use their intelligence capacity, they're going to provide assistance, they're going to tap one candidate or the other and try to help them or use them in some way for their own aims, if the intelligence community realizes that's happening, they figure at a out through their own capacities, if the element in the u.s. election system that is getting that help that has had those foreign contacts and that's accepting it is the president's campaign, who should the intelligence community brief that information to? i mean, you wouldn't go to the perpetrator to say, hey, we've

got important information that you're the perpetrator, would you? would they go to the gang of eight, go to congress and not directly to the president and the president turns out to be the bad guy? >> fortunately that's the dilemma we haven't encountered to date. in my estimation it would be the obligation of the intelligence community to not only brief the appropriate executive branch officials, including the president's cabinet, the president and the vice president, but it would also require that they do brief congress. as you said, the gang of eight, which is as you know are the four leaders on either side and the leaders of the intelligence committees. that is the inner sanctum, so to speak, of congressional oversight of the intelligence community and the intelligence community has a long-established relationship with that gang of eight as well as with the intelligence committees

themselves. so i would think it would need at a minimum to brief the gang of eight and possibly more broadly the intelligence committees on both sides. >> but if the president was the one who was working with a foreign power in a way that was illegal under u.s. law and an intelligence concern for the intelligence committees, they would have to brief it to the president? >> it's hard to see how they avoid that unless they refer it through law enforcement channels and, you know, the justice department, cough, and the courts are able to do their duty. but it's hard to imagine how the executive branch is uninformed at the highest levels about a finding of that sort by the intelligence community. >> wow, even when it implicates the ahead of the executive branch itself. that's amazing. >> this is unchartered territory, thankfully, and let's all pray we don't get there.

>> that was in june of this year. let's all pray we don't get there. fortunately that's an "a" dilemma we haven't encountered to date. what is particularly amazing to me about that conversation with susan rice from six freaking months ago is that she says, you know, if you couldn't take it to the president, of course you would have to take it to the justice department, and hope they could do its duty. that happened here. that's exactly what happened here. they took it to the justice department, the justice department said we'll take that and we decided it's fine. it only took -- it wasn't six months. only three months or so, but we have arrived there. it's been a remarkable week. stay with us. more to come. performance comes in lots of flavors. there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result.

that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain,

and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. you will always be able to say that you were alive and living here and you had your eyes open when they started the impeachment proceedings against the president of the united states for asking another foreign country to get involved with helping him get elected after that helped him get elected the first time. it's just been a remarkable week. i expect this weekend will be just as nuts as the last four days have been. we'll see you again on monday. time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> turns out the whistle-blower is right again. there's that passage in the whistle-blower report that people he spoke to said it's not the first time that a presidential transcript was placed int