charges. >> i think we can do it in a timely fashion. >> that's what the republicans are worried about. they're worried about primaries, and worried about the wrath of trump. >> here we go now. plus what to expect from supreme court justice john roberts, and a potential senate impeachment trial. but developing right now at the top of the house, house democrats making new and key moves as their impeachment inquiry intensifies, the chairs of the intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees issuing their first subpoena, that secretary of state mike pompeo produce documents relating to ukraine. the committee is scheduling depositions from five a officials, including kurt volume kerr, who resigned yet. the intelligence committee also said for a closed-door briefing from inspector general michael

atkinson. that will happen friday, gregory meeks told nbc earlier that the investigation is moving quickly. >> we want to make sure we do our due diligence. it should not take a long period of time, basically you have a lot of admissions by the president himself. you know the parties that are involved. the american people should just read it. they should read this document and the document of the note, and the document that came from the whistle-blower. just read it. it's clear on its face. mean white the president is dismissing the efforts. >> there's no high crime, no misdemeanor, no violation of law or regulation. the justice department, when they looked at it said there was no violation here. i think this is just political theater. another new twist today. we're learning what president

trump told two russian officials in a now infamous meeting in the oval office that happened in may of 2017. it was the day after he fired former fbi director james comey. "the washington post" reports trump told the russians that, quote, he was unconcerned about moscow's interference in the u.s. election, because the united states did the same thing in other countries. that is an assertion that prompted -- really alarmed white house officials to limit access to the remark toss an unusually small number of people. this according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter. so let's go to the white house now. hans nichols is standing by. a good saturday to you, hans. how is the president reacting to the stream of new revelations? i know he's been on twitter. >> reporter: he's been on twitter. he headed out to his golf course earlier. what's interesting about the story you just mentioned, it really has two aspects -- one, what the president said. we should note the president said similar things in public.

he's been very dismissive of russia meddling that helped him in any ways. you can remember most recently the g-20, he almost told vladimir putin don't meddle. officials thought it was concerni concerning, and they put it into the second or third-degree safety vault. some sort of digital safe where it couldn't be easily accessed. that in some ways is the more interesting aspect of this story. now, the president, as you mentioned, he is taking to twitter, attacking democrats. we saw that earlier -- can you imagine if they do-nothing democratic savages had a republican party who had would have done to obama what the do nothings are doing to me? oh, well, maybe next time. we heard from jay sekalow

earlier at the top. listen to this. >> this individual that decided to spy on the president's conversation based on hearsay information, whatever you want to do, this individual had no firsthand knowledge of anything, knowledge. this was written by a law firm. you know what? the american people see it for what it is. no one has the -- nobody has the appetite for this anymore. >> real quick -- >> call for a vote. that's what i tell jerry nadler and adam schiff. just call for a vote. >> reporter: to be clear there's for no evidence that the whistle-blower's complaint was written by a law firm. there's no evidence of that. adam schiff said he's looking for details, leads and evidence. one, they want to gather all the facts. that's why they are working through the recess, they're

signaling a sense of urgency, but alex, they're also suggesting this could just be the first steps if they're gathering leads and evidence, this may be going on longer than anyone might be anticipating, hans nichols, we'll pick up the conversation from there. thank glue join he muss is mike quigley, a democratic member of the house committee. your thoughts to what jay sekulow had to say. he of course is the president's attorney. what do you think about what he said. >> first of all, the complaint is corroborated by the call summary that the white house put out we're talking about trump appointees, too, who have been corroborating this. the inspector general we spoke to for four hours, as straight an arrow as there is, talked about corroborating this, talked about multiple anxiouses. instead i think he's anxious to come back. we'll be talking to him again

next friday in the intel committee, to follow up. how exactly was this complaining witness report corroborated in the time he had. >> congressman, when you hear the likes of jay sekulow and others in the administration as what this a, or do you just hut down, keep on doing what you've got to do. >> i sometimes wonder if they believe it or are just doing their job? it's somebody my rep colleagues, many of them are afraid of primaries because of trump base supporters, but i look back at house speaker ryan, how he hachbld these things, and frankly his last of intestinal fortitude to come forward and say the things he said after he left. the majority of republicans who have spoken out about this president and the presidency, have done so either on their way out or after the time they have

had served. >> okay. so let's look ahead now. your committee as well as that of oversight, foreign affairs, requesting depositions from five senior state officials, including mike pompeo as well. what exactly are you looking for from these officials? >> i want to know who played a role, and what role did they play in this fiasco involving ukraine? what don't we know as well? the fact of the matter is there were multiple people who came forward to this complaining witness, to talk about these issues. who else is willing to talk about them? this goes also a president who has rarely committed a crime one. can i ask, do they have to testify? if so, what happens if they refuse to be cooperative? we have seen other who in the past have not been cooperative with congress, and nothing seems

to have happened to them? >> i don't expect cooperation. i expect the same sort of either obstruction or stonewalls. that's unfortunate to the extent we can, we'll have the witnesses come forward. the rest will be a continued court battle. i would like to think the courts recognize the urgency of these matters given the ukrainian issue, given the fact that national security is involved, that the president muscled one of our allies and used the department of justice to aid in that obstruction. >> your committee is set to hold a closed-door hearing with intel. you said that you want to know more about who was in on this. what specifically do you want to hear from him? >> how he corroborated the accusations that took place. again, i said he was a straight

arrow. he refused to talk about anything related to this specific instance. when i asked about corroboration, he told us how he does it in general. he will have the opportunity, as much time as he needs, to detail exactly who he talked to, what they said, how he corroborated each instance and each allegation. we expect it to be extraordinarily detailed. i also believe it would bring forward others who should testify before our committee and others. >> let's in fact play a bit of the he exchange you have with acting dni maguire this week. >> what is your understanding right now of what mr. giuliani's role is. >> mr. congressman quigley, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president's personal lawyer. >> obviously mr. giuliani is playing this role. tourge, does he have security

clearance? >> i don't know. >> were you aware of his role or understanding what his role was? >> my only knowledge of what mr. giuliani does, i have to be honest, i get from tv and the news media. i am not aware of what he does in fact for the president. >> joseph maguire used the word "unprecedented" during the hear. when you hear his reaction about the questioning of rudy giuliani and the details he's clearly unaware of, which we presume is truthful, what is your thoughts on that and the role that rudy giuliani has played in general? >> i would like to know what role he's played. frankly it's scary he's probably dealing with classified information. i prefer to the head of our intelligence community and the fact that he was concerned about someone playing this role without clearance. the fact that the person in

charge of our intelligence committee has no idea what rudie is doing? is he personally dealing? is he a personal attorney? is he working for the state department somehow? apparently not, given what rudy said about he mr. pompeo being upset with him. as a result there's zero transparency. we have no idea what proems he might be making with ukraine, if it involves he personal favors for the president, as seems obvious. rudy, if it's also transparent and you're the hero in all of this, come testify before our committee. >> what about other witnesses you would like to call? could we see attorney general barr? secretary of state pompeo in the witness chair? if that's possible, when would that happen? or do they claim executive privilege at trump's request? >> i think they -- obviously they should be there. they'll claim whatever privilege

they can to not be there. obviously they played a big role. they're all listed prominently in the complaint and in the transcript we received. this was push comes to shove. this is a president who has used privilege to the extent he possibly can to obstruct the investigation, but privilege does not protect criminal wrongdoing. >> let's listen to speaker pelosi who discussed all the expectations in terms of timing. here he is. >> this is not a cause for any joy we have to go down this path. it's a difficult decision to make, but we have that obligation, because in the actions that were taken to undermine the constitution and the oath we take to protect and defend, including the oath that the president takes. >> so congressman, how long do you expect this investigation to last? do you think there's a finite window of opportunity that will

close? and if so, how concerned are you that the inquiry could be done for expedience sake instead of having a completely thorough examination? >> that's the same way i felt about the mueller investigation. what i took at the end of the mueller investigation is that frankly the special counsel was a little worn out and the fact that he had wanted to interview the president and that it was vital, and the fact that he didn't, gave me some indication he felt he was pressured for time and didn't get the job done. i would also question whether he ever got to any of the issues related to following the money. same issues here. when the president obstruct and the white house stonewalls, it's going to be very difficult to meet these timelines. it will be on our courts to press this issue and recognize however they feel about these issues, the american public has a right to know whether or not the united states muscled a

foreign power to help himself and his political campaign. >> it reminded me of bret calf now, and how he was given just a week to do the investigation. having said that, is this timing political? is there pressure to get it to the senate? >> i think there's political pressure to delay and stonecall as long as possible. i think we feel, having watched this take place with the special counsel, if we don't have an urgency, the white house will successfully push all this past any sort of election period. we're already pressure pressing the statute of limitations issue, where if you believe the justice department that a sitting president ability be indicted, it could be past the -- so certainly there is an urgency in time. i don't think it's an urgency for expediency.

i think it's an urgency wanting to get this done so that the president doesn't allow his allies in the court system to stall this past any meaningful analysis. but, look, this has been a concern from the very beginning in terms of if the house ultimately votes to impeach the president, but the senate fails to convict, then those feel it's all a failure and waste of time. what would you say to that? >> i think the white house hearings are instructive. the fact of the matter is early in the hearing process most americans did not favor impeachment. much was learned, including the butterfield revelation. only 3% of american people have read the report, but millions watched his testimony. where are the american people now? at the very least, we are educating and informing them. that organic pressure up from

the american people is where i am just starting to see the cracks and fissures of republicans backing out their unlimited support for this president. whether or not the senate decides to make -- to do the right thing on this thing, that's important, but as important is that the american public understanding what they're dealing with with this president. john dean said there was a cancer on the presidency. what i'm trying to help the american people understand is this cancer, this presidents is the cancer on our democracy. >> congressman mike quigley, thank you for your time. >> thank you. joining me liz goodwin, and peter baker, white house correspond for "new york times," and co-author of the book "impeachment, an american history." i'm going to ask one question and then hold you over

through the break. the headline in that, peter, what struck you? >> i'm struck by the urgency he expressed, that they feel that they got caught on the wrong side of the mueller case by dragging it out, by having the investigation drag out so far that it lost any sense of public outrage that might be there right now, if they don't act quickly, they don't act in an expedient fashion, they could lose momentum for this as well. that's why you've seen them move in remarkable fashion this how doesn't move quickly on anything, yet in the few space of days, the speaker announced the inquiry, we saw the subpoenas, and setting of depositions, the release of the whistle-blower complaint. that's breakneck speed for this particular impeachment. the question is, where will it

end up? also the things that the congressman wants to hear about, learn from all these depositions. we heard from that from him. is it realistic to get that information at the speed they're hoping for? he used the word stonewalling. >> does any of this testimony end up in court before they get to take it. that could drag things out obviously. that has a way of chilling the momentum. the republican critique is you're just jamming this through, you just want to achieve the political end you predecided. so there is a balance for them to worry about. >> liz, what is your your takeaway? >> what struck me is the congressman talk about only 3% of american people read the report, but millions watched the testimony. so what i'm wondering, they so

far don't have anyone who's going to testify in public on tv who could make that kind of impression. all of these depositions are behind closed doors. i'm wondering, how will they tell this story to the american people? can they find someone who will be that storyteller who is willing to answer honestly? and in an open hearing they can televise. >> you talked about the hurdle this places on them to get it publicly consumed, is one way to put it. stay with us. coming up next, everyone, the mood inside the white house after the president's threat to go after the alleged leaker, and after the whistle-blower identified several white house officials who can back up his account. later, the steps toward impeachment and mitch mcconnell's wiggle room to protect the president. s wiggle o protect the president. joint replacing, and depression relieving company.

from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house.

(vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy.

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.

slamming democrats as the do nothing savages. this is house democrats first issued a subpoena any the inquiry. peter, we have the president certainly not letting up. he's attacking whistle-blowers, even got after you on twitter, as if you needed to be told that, but any insight how the president is processing this? and the overall mood? >> i think this has been a

head-spinning week for the president and his team. last week they were looking forward for the general assembly session, and they thought they had a week ahead of global diplomacy. issues like iran were front and center, and suddenly the world changed. the revelation about the pressure, it has turned the political environment upsidedown. the president is clearly reacting with a mix of anger, grievance, i think a bit of confuse. he said himself i thought impeachment was did i. he's been taken off-guard that it's come so strong and so quickly. obviously the staff thought months ago with the mueller report that they had dodged a bullet. now they're trying to scramble to turn things around. you're going to see an

aggressive poushback, and everybody who is out to see him are radical socialists caving into pressure from the left wing. the question is -- i don't know if that is going to deter the democrats. >> so the white house further restricting access to memos. there's an ex-white house official who is offering another explanation why that happened. that official says the goal was to limit the leaks, especially in light of leaked transcript with the conversations with leaders of members do and australia in the summer of 2017. how is that being played? >> it's part of the context. there's no question, though, that the leak of the conversation the president had with the leaders of mexico and australia was very embarrassing moment very upsetting. i think any president would be

upset to see those leaked. also, remember this is the president who wanted notes back from an interpreter when he had meetings with putin. so he already had a brie disposition to keep conversations private. how many of these rough transcripts that they created ended up in the most secure database, that we don't know. that is the interesting question. >> embarrassment, liz, is this how the white house justifies moving the transcripts to a highly classified system? is that going to fly? >> i mean, i think peter is right, it depends on which conversation are moved there. is it every single call? or are they just pertaining to calls that contain potentially political damaging information? as we see with the ukrainian

call notes, there's nothing in there that impacts security. so the only goal in putting that in a special classified system would be to avoid political damaging information getting out. that's where you have a case where maybe the president's abusing his office to use national security justifications for political reasons. that would be very problematic. it depends on which conversations are in there. >> yeah, you wrote a very interesting piece, liz that's tileded the limits of trump "so what if i did" strategy. the president hayes weathered other storms in the past. is there an indication that it is different this time? >> this was ink spired by ashley parker's piece a week or so ago, that it's hard to paint him as a

scandal, so he'll do it in the open. russia, if you're listening is a perfect example. it's something like stormy daniels, and then once it got out through rudy giuliani, which is also similar, they started saying, sure, there was a hush payment. and then just saying -- owning it aggressively to make it seem like i'm admitting it, so how can it be so bad? it seemed to be similar here, he releases the transcript of a joint conference. he says this is a perfect call, but it feels to have hit a wall here. even though it's all out in the open, the notes themselves are very troubling. it's still a candle and still fueling this impeachment inquiry. it might be the end of the line for that strategy. as you say hitting the wall and certainly bending the norm. thanks, guys. democrats moving full speed

ahead. up next, a step-by-step breakdown of what we can expect as the inquiry moving forward. also today at 4:00 eastern, it is the global citizen festival from central park. there's live performances, including queen, pharrell williams, and alisha keys, carole king, too. keys, carole king, too ♪ when you have diabetes, dietary choices are crucial to help manage blood sugar, but it can be difficult to find a balanced solution. try great-tasting boost glucose control. the patented blend of protein, fat, and carbs is part of a balanced formula that's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels. in fact, it provides 60% more protein than the leading diabetes nutrition shake and contains only 1 carb choice.

enjoy the balanced nutrition of boost glucose control as part of a healthy diet. could another come aroundot, the corner. or could it play out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot. almost 98% of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling numbness or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily. and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planed medical or dental procedures.

what's around the corner could be your moment. ask your doctor about eliquis. -[ scoffs ] if you say so. ♪ -i'm sorry? -what teach here isn't telling you is that snapshot rewards safe drivers with discounts on car insurance. -what? ♪ -or maybe he didn't know. ♪ [ chuckles ] i'm done with this class. -you're not even enrolled in this class. -i know. i'm supposed to be in ceramics. do you know -- -room 303. -oh. thank you. -yeah. -good luck, everybody. -oh. thank you. -yeah. johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company.

from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you.

washington is moving fast on impeachment. how would this process unfold? let's break it down for you. they would present articles of impeachment. the members of the house judiciary committee would have to approve them. the full house needs just a simple majority of 218 to impeach. more than that, by the way, already supporting the impeachment inquiry, then it goes to the trial in the senate presided over by chief justice john roberts. the president would be entitled to have defense lawyers, a two thirds majority of 67 senate votes is need to do impeach, but the senate is control by republicans. let's dig deeper with elizabeth

holtzman. here she is when she was a member of the house judiciary committee. she recommended articles of impeachment for president nixon. also joinings bled wydra, an expert on constitutional law. i welcome you both, elizabeth, i'm going to refer to you as elizabeth and the congresswoman as congresswoman. is mcconnell required to hold an impeachment trial if the house holds a vote, or are there procedural rules to keep a trial from happening? >> that's an excellent question after we saw what mitch mcconnell did to merritt garland. the constitution does not give him this wiggle room.

also here, to distinguish it from the garland situation is the senate rules, which are very clear, once the house passes articles of impeachment, that the senate must hold a trial. there's procedures immediately following the passage of impeachment. you know, i think where we're at right here is a lawyer where benjamin franklin famously said it's a republic if you can keep it. the question is whether we can keep it. mitch mcconnell has a big role to make sure he follows the constitution and the senate rules himself. i don't think he'll garland his way out of impeachment. >> that's one way to put it. what can we expect from chief justice john roberts? are there any clues from what you've observed on the bench? >> absolutely chief justice roberts has made great pains to

paint himself and his court above politics. he does not like them to be seen, as president trump on which tries to paint them as political actors. president trump has said over and over on twitter he views the supreme court and the chief justice in his pocket, perhaps his literal get out of jail free card, and chief justice roberts loathes that sort of thing. he's been clear he does not want himself and his fellow justices to be seen that way. in this crucial moment of constitutional democracy, he will go out of his way to try to be above politics. you know, to try to follow the role perhaps of chief june rehnquist when he presided over the clinton trial, as he said, to do as also as possible and do it very well. >> the congresswoman, you reviewed the evidence against nixon and has seen this

evidence. it has said this is worse than watergate, because we're talking about a matter of national security. do you agree with that? >> it's different from watergate, but let's not minimize what richard nixon did, and the evidence was overwhelming. everybody thinking about watergate as involving the break-in and the cover-up of the break-in into the watergate hotel of the dnc. the always of impeachant were much broader. it wasn't just one egregious act. it was a investigate of acts. you had the whole cover-up, the hush money, the suborning perjury, breaking into the psychiatrist's office, the illegal wiretaps, the enemies list, a whole bunch of other things who you had in the articles of impeachment was not

one egregious act. what we showed was systematic abuse of power and a presidency run amok. so the question is, is this going to be focused only on ukraine, even though ukraine is now unraveling in quite a serious way, or is it going to also attach some of the information on the other articles -- possible articles such as emoluments, such as the mueller report. i hope they do it that way, because if you look at impeachment itself, it's to remove a president. it's not about wrapping the president on the knuckles or punishing the president. it's about removing a president, because the president is such a danger to democracy. the on more you can so this is a systematic danger, the more you have a chance to remove him.

>> you're talking about all -- >> i'm not saying all, but more than just the ukraine issue. >> watergate had a smoking gun. that was the tapes. within weeks after the supreme court ruled that those tapes had to be released, your committee voted for impeachment, public support for it tripled, republicans turned on a dime against him, and then what, three months later, the president resigns the presidency given your experience, this finite window of time, how do you impeachment inquire be out as it needs to be and look at the different avenues, or are democrats going to feel pressure to rush through this? >> i think it will be -- it's going to be very tough. i'm not sure that the deadline is what nancy pelosi says it should be, because i think the deadline is cannot make the

house of representatives look political. the reason impeachment articles work and there was public support for it is because the how judiciary committee acted in a way that was fair, serious, grave, responsible. you look like you're going to a pasch san railroad of the president? you're not going to get that kind of public support. you really have to do it in a way -- what did the supreme court kay, deliberate speed? you have to be speedy, but you've also got to be -- you also have to look at more than -- you've got to look at the facts and put them together. elizabeth holtzman, elizabeth wydra, thank you so much. wide support for republican senators for impeachment may be much greater than you might think. that's next. than you might think. that's next. hi. maria ramirez! mom!

maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. 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. why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief

to the rapidly changing tide on impeachment, 226 house members have now voiced support for inquiry or for impeaching the president. 86 of those joining that number in just the last week alone. republicans are standing by the president, but in the senate new questions about whether that firewall is starting to crack. take a listen to this exchange with jeff flake. >> all the attention now is on your former colleagues in the senate. they would be the jury if there was an impeachment proceeding. so when you call your friends in

d.c., what are they saying about these new allegations? >> oh, somebody mentioned yesterday that if there were a private vote, that there would be 30 republican veets. that's not true. there will be at least 35. oar maybe more, but that's not possible so they have to come out. many are up for reelection in tough seats, and he know that feeling. >> joining us is elena beverly who worked for the obama administration, michelle bernard, and republican strategist rick tyler. welcome to all. rick, first to you. i'm curious about the comment you would have on the former not. are republican senators really that xlibted behind the scenes? do you believe if there were a private vote, that's how it would go down?

>> i think that's right. look, the way -- impeachment we've all been talking about is an inherently political process. most senators aren't really leaders. the republicans have demonstrated no ability to lead. if their districts or states flip, right? if their states are suddenly 60-40 or they've vole for impeachment. they won't do that until they see that. there's a lot of work to be done. it's difficult, which is why i've been trying to explain, they have to keep this simple. they have to be talking about what trump did. remember, people didn't understand whitewater and all the other things that clinton was impeached on. they understood an affair with an intern, it was fairly simple. they have to understand that a president extorted a foreign leader vis-a-vis military aid for political gain. it's that simple. if you're talking about anything else, you know, if you're

talking about the dni who just started and what he did and where it went, look, you're talking about the whistle-blower, if you're going down whistle-blower lane, they'll say the whistle-blower was for biden. it doesn't matter. the whistle-blower pulled the fire alarm. either there was a fire or there wasn't. if there wasn't, he would be the center of attention. if there is a fire, and there is now trump's the center of attention. the democrats have to learn how to do serious committee hearings, and they've got to focus on what trump did and talk about nothing else. >> you're not the first person to say that. that's been echoed a couple times. michelle, to you first a this. the how presumably impeaches the president, let's say. then the senate needs a two thirds vote to convict him. that means every single democrat and independent who caucuses with them votes to quick, but they still need 20 republican

defections. is there a scenario under which you see that happening? >> i think it's placesible. one of the reasons is if you look at the republicans who have so far been able to say publicly without fear of previceal from the president, that this is a serious problem and they have concerns about what's been alleged in that whistle-blower complaint. we have senator mitt romney, who is so well respected from utah, senator ben sasse from nebraska, wisconsin is a very important state, and michael turner from ohio, another important swing state. i think if we look at the republicans coming forward so far, i think there's a scenario until which we see 20 republicans in the senate being willing to look very seriously at the allegations and possibly vote for the impeachment of the president. >> what about timing, elena? how confident are you that we'll see a house vote by the end of

this year? can the investigation really be that fast and also be as thorough as it needs to be? >> oh, i think we will see one by the end of the year. i think this all turns frankly on public opinion, and we are seeing that the momentum is building among public pin in the polls. so, for example, just this week, the m marist poll reached 43% an all-time high for support for the impeachment process. i think the democrats are very clear in being united on this, that it's not a question of if, it's just a question of when, and i think that they want to be able shine a light on all these details so that, one, the impeachment process can be seen through to the end before we get into the election year, and two so that voters have the benefit of all of this information. >> what do you think the wiser move is here, michelle, that the democrats focus exclusively on

the ukraine issue, or as you may have heard elizabeth holtzman saying there's many different avenues. >> i think there are many different avenues to pursue, th ukraine. i think many americans don't know where ukraine is, don't know what it stands for. if you look at the base of the republican party supportive of this president, there is an enormous anti-immigrant sentiment, enormous anti foreigner sentiment. i think the base of donald trump's republican party will then say to themselves, if this is our man, if this is the guy who promised us this an anti-immigrant sentiment, anti foreigner sentiment, why would he go to foreigners to cheat the country? i think they focus on ukraine. >> you're echoing rick who wants things to stay streamlined, clear, straightforward, that's the best way to get the message across. alaina, is the house more focused on convincing voters

that the president should be impeached than on convincing republicans? if that is the case, would it be better to let it play out in the ballot box next year? >> it is one in the same. we're not going to get the plurality of the senators unless the democrats are with them on the impeachment process i. does have to be a very disciplined messaging campaign about what the truth is about the corruption that is occurring in this white house under trump's leadership. >> rick, i want to tell you what elizabeth holzman told me. she said, look, this thing should after with regard to votes after republican primary season. she ideally said sometime like july, allow the republicans during a primary season to go through those primary elections, see how the chips fall, get this done in july. it's a lot closer to november. but she reminded us that the vote was taken for president nixon with regard to impeachment

in july. what's your thought on the timing? >> smart politics. nobody wants to be running in a trump district running against impeaching the president that everybody likes. let me tell you what's at stake, if they do impeach the president and the senate doesn't vote to convict, imagine what kind of a presidency you're going to have? this wasn't bill clinton who was contrite after he was impeached after he was conducted. this is donald trump. imagine what kind of department of justice you'll have in an impeached but not convicted administration. the democrats really need to get this right. i'm sorry to say it's on them to do it, on them to convince the american people as alaina was saying. that's the whole ball. if you convince the american people, it will go through. remember, again, it's never happened in american history. no president has ever been removed from office. >> last word to you, michelle. i think you were shaking your head no with regard to the timeline. >> it really frightens me to hear the timing of this be laid

down to politics and when the best timing is. i think the reason we can't let this play out at the ballot box and can't time it based on the politics of the situation is because our democracy is in grave danger. the american public is very smart and the american public will understand if the story is told and the story is told in a simple way. and fighting for our democracy, fighting for our constitution and fighting for our role in the world as the leader of democratic nations and explaining to countries all over the world that we give aid to the universal principles of human rights and what is it is to be a republican, what it is to be a democracy. there's no room to play politics. i think july of 2020 is too late. >> great conversation alaina beverly, michelle bernard, rick tyler, thank you so much. >> thank you. outcry of the whistle-blower case echoes today on the 2020 campaign trail. that's ahead. il that's ahead

plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪

red lobster's endless shrimp is back for just $15.99. get all the shrimp you want, any way you want 'em. like new sriracha-honey shrimp, savory grilled teriyaki shrimp, classic shrimp scampi and more! red lobster's endless shrimp is $15.99. hurry in. "burger! i want a sugar cookie! i want a bucket of chicken! i want....."

"it's the easiest, because it's the cheesiest" kraft. for the win win. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection

increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. critical steps are about to be taken by house democrats in the impeachment probe. at the top of the hour, what to expect in the next two weeks.

memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i've always been faand still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk

if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. our because of smoking.ital. 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. (classical music playing throughout)

new twist gripping much of washington, from closed-door briefings to a top secret server to new information about an infamous oval office meeting. the impeachment probe picking up steam, portending a dramatic two weeks to come. the complaint is a veritable laundry list of problem plat tick charges. >> a lot of admissions by the president himself. i think we can do it in a timely fashion. >> that's what the republicans are worried about.

they're worried about primaries and they're worried about the wrath of trump. good day. from msnbc world headquarters in new york, welcome to ""weekends with alex witt."" developing right now, house democrats making new and key moves as their impeachment inquiry intensifies. the chairs of house intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees issuing their first subpoena demanding secretary of state mike pompeo produce documents related to trump's dealings with ukraine by next friday in what promises to be a dramatic two weeks ahead. the committee is scheduling depositions from five senior state department officials. intel committee member mike quigley told me last hour what they aim to find out. >> i want to know who played a role and what role did they play in this fiasco involving ukraine. what don't we know as well. the fact of the matter is there were multiple people who came forward to this complaining witness to talk about these issues. who else is willing to talk

about them? >> well, the intelligence committee now also set for a closed door briefing from intel community inspector general michael atkinson scheduled for saturday. new york representative gregory meeks said the investigation is moving quickly, but it will be thorough. >> we're going to make sure we do all due diligence. it should not take a long period of time, basically because you've got a lot of admissions by the president himself. you know the parties that are involved. the american people should just read it. they should read this document and the document of the notes, instead of the actual transcript of the phone call, and the document that came from the whistle-blower. just read it. it's clear on its face. >> meanwhile, president trump's attorney is dismissing the democrats' impeachment efforts. >> there's no high crime, no misdemeanor, no jielgs of a law, rule or regulation. the justice department when they looked at it said there was no violation here. so i think this is just a

political theater, that's what it is. >> two more new fwifts today. first up, we're learning what president trump told who russian officials in an infamous meeting in the oval office the day after he fired former fbi director james comey. "the washington post" reports trump told the russians, quote, he was unconcerned about moscow's interference in the election because the united states did the same in other countries. according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter. according to "the new york times," current and former officials say the white house stopped short -- stored transcripts of calls from russian president putin as well as the saudi royal family in a highly classified computer system that only a select few officials have access to. let's go to the white house and nbc's kelly o'donnell. a lot to unmake here. how is the white house

responding to all of this? >> reporter: certainly on the issue of the code word required server, what officials are saying is, yes, this ukraine call and the call summary we've all seen now declassified and made public was included in this more protected, limited access server. as "the washington post" reports, we've not been able to specifically match their reporting about two other high profile countries that would certainly be newsworthy no matter what the contents of the call, the president speaking with saudi arabia and russia. those would always be of high interest. and those apparently contained in that server as well. from talking with officials here, they have said it is their expectation that a number of calls and the question is, is it the majority of calls, some calls, even all calls with the president and a foreign leader. are they behind the code word protected server. the reason for this, white house officials are saying at least in

some way their explanation is that early in the administration when the president had calls with mexico and australia, two countries that, on the face of it, would not be sort of hot areas that we would expect there would be controversy. there were stories that came out that ended up being very critical of the president and how he handled those calls and there was in many ways an embarrassment to the president and the white house. so they tried to tighten access to those calls. so part of what we're trying to understand and report out here is when that change in policy happened, which was some time ago, does it reflect the majority of calls, or was this ukraine call put behind that barrier because of the content of what was said? so that's part of what is not fully understood at this point. now that it's public and part of an impeachment inquiry, the content of what was said is the focus of attention. but the process can be a big part of this as well, and limiting the number of people

who would have had access to review these documents that we've looked at, this call summary that gives a reconstructed conversation would have been much more narrow than in past white houses, for example. >> kelly o'donnell at the white house, thank you so much. joining me to discuss all of it, michael mcfaul, former ambassador to russia and msnbc national affairs analyst. always great to speak with you. new reporting from "the new york times," sourcing both current and former officials saying the white house stored transcripts of these calls from president putin and the saudi royal family in this classified system and only a select few have code word access to it. you used to be one of those officials listening to phone calls between president obama and russian leaders. what is your reaction to this? >> well, i was. i worked three years at the national security council before going to moscow. i was on all those phone calls and all those classifications,

and i cleaned up transcriptions, by the way, that we took to get them right -- >> what do you mean by cleaned up? how would you clean them up? >> there's a lot of mystery here. let's talk about it in a little bit of detail. when president obama called putin or medvedev. he always did those in the oval office, not in the residence, like president trump did with president zelensky. i was always in the room. i was always sitting on the other phone in the oval office listening to the call, taking notes. i speak russian. i was taking notes in english and russian. in the white house situation room there were also more than one people listening to the call, tribing to the best of their ability, usually someone from my office, too, in the white house situation room listening to the call so we could reconstruct the transcript to the best of our abilities. but to move forward, it usually was classified as secret, not

top secret, by the way, which would have limited it even more. and never in my memory did it go into this secret compartmentalized information that you're talking about. that's a special direct rat of intelligence that keeps that special information. >> like what? what would you say would be appropriate to put into that directorate. >> i can't talk about it. that's the point. highly sensitive information about covert operations, information we have about weapons systems that have to protect our sources for gathering it, not a phone call with a head of state. i want to emphasize one other really important thing, at least in the obama era, if you're working on ukrainiae yanish use those phone calls are important for the conduct of policy. even when i was not allowed to

circulate it widely, we would have meetings at the white house, at the national security council, where i would talk about the content so that our diplomats and our ambassador could conduct foreign policy. so by not circulating it, you're basically saying the rest of the government doesn't get to be a part of u.s.-ukrainian relations. >> trump white house officials saying, apparently according to the whistle-blower, they would put these conversations into this directorate to save phase, to keep from allowing embarrassing things to come out. is there any justification for 'embarrassment to be protected ? b, did you ever have a situation with president obama where there was something embarrassing that you felt you needed to cover up or sequester off? >> the first thing is, if there's nothing wrong here, why are they trying to cover it up, trying to hide it? you can't have it both ways. you can't say it's a perfect

call but we're trying to put it in a place where nobody else would see it. that fundamental contradiction i think is at the heart of the matter here. with respect to obama, no, i don't remember anything along those lines because in all of president obama's calls that i was in for three years -- and some of them, by the way, in meetings when i was ambassador. remember there's also transcriptions, memorandums of conversations when they meet. that's another piece that we do not have, particularly with vladimir putin and president trump. in all those instances, he was talking, using our talking points to advance american national interest, not to advance his personal political intere interests. >> how many people are we talking about being on these calls, and what is the defining line about deciding, well, we're not going to have, say, the 15, we're just going to have five? how do you make that dishment of what needs to be super

sensitive. >> that's a good question. that's decided by the national security advisor and the people close to him. when i worked at the white house, we would usually have three or four people sometimes in the oval office for important calls. in the situation room there would be three or four people listening. their job is solely to get the transcription right. they're literally scribbling and scribbling trying to capture what was there. remember, they're also losing stuff because of trance lapgs. that's where i sometimes came in to help out with that. the translator cannot get it all right in realtime. and then there would be a decision made, again, usually by the national security adviser who would get the readout of that call. and in our administration, it usually was senior cabinet officials. by the way, the attorney general -- when the attorney general said he hadn't seen this call, that was surprising to me because our attorney general, eric holder, would have

certainly have seen it, especially if he was talked about in the call and tasked to do something. the secretary of state would have been somebody to see that and the dni, the director of national intelligence. it would have been a short list but it would not just have been people working at the white house. >> can i ask you why it wouldn't just be recorded and then transcribed? it seems like madly and furiously scribbling, there's human error potential. >> as a professor, i naively asked that question at the white house when i first showed up there. i live in silicon valley where we value technology. i was told that's just not the norm. they didn't want to have those recordings. but you've got to believe most certainly for my interlocutories, i have reasons to believe the russians were recording our phone calls on the other side. i don't know about the ukrainians. >> i have so many more questions but i'm unfortunately out of time. it may need to be a phone call.

>> do it again. let's keep talking. >> good to see you. joining me now abigail tracy and john harwood. i had so many questions for him. he's got such great insight, as do the both of you. it's been a head-spinning week to say the least, john, this whole flood of revelations. i'm curious what you think is most significant in all that has unfolded this week. >> first of all, if i was in your position, i wouldn't have cut from mike mcfall ul to come us. we have the president in his own words, in this memorandum of the conversation essentially making the case against him. events have moved very rapidly since this whistle-blower complaint was lodged and then it came out first in the memorandum of the phone call, then in the whistle-blower's complaint. remember, richard nixon

announced his resignation with his republican support having collapsed within three days of the release of the smoking gun tape which had him in his own words making clear his guilt. >> can i just say, i thought mcfaul say that is a nixonian thing now. we don't record things in the white house for exactly that reason. that's what i thought he would say when i asked why isn't it recorded. >> i don't know the answer to that. i think it may be related to what happened with the nixon tapes. but we've had multiple administrations since then. if, in fact, none of them have recorded these leader calls, the reasons for that i don't know. but what we have from the memorandum of the phone call, in the president's own word him applying pressure on the ukrainian leader to investigate joe biden and making it very clear that he is leaning on him with the prospect of a meeting

and the aid for those javelin missiles hanging in the balance there. that is in black and white in ways that democrats have decided they cannot ignore, and it is not impossible that republicans are going to get to that same place and decide they can't ignore it either. hasn't happened yet. wouldn't necessarily say it's likely to happen. but it could happen. >> abigail, you have extensive reporting on the democrats' strategy moving forward, details, in fact, from closed door meetings. give me the main takeaways. >> absolutely. kind of to john's point, this is something democrats are identifying as incredibly salient and something that the american people -- it's easily digestible in terms of what and why this is a problem. in terms of the democratic strategy, on thursday afternoon there was a meeting of the congressional progressive caucus where congressman adam schiff and congressman jerry nadler spoke to the group and sort of laid out their plan. essentially, obviously the recess started yesterday, but the plan in this moment is for

house intelligence to move forward as quickly as possible and investigate the ukraine allegations. for instance, one of the keys as we move ahead is sort of the subpoena strategy that they've adopted. in the past they did this dog and pony show where they'd say, if you come testify, great. if not, we'll subpoena you. what adam schiff said no, now they're going straight to subpoenas for individuals they think would be reluctant to appear before congress to speed up that timeline. essentially when we're looking at what house intelligence is doing, they're setting the timeline for all other committees. in the ukraine investigation, as soon as that wraps up, as soon as adam schiff's committee completes their work, what you're going to see are these over investigatory committees, whether oversight or financial services, along with intelligence, to turn over their evidence and recommendations to judiciary which will then draft articles of impeachment which will be decided in tandem.

>> the question to both of you, and you first, abigail, this timeline. when do you expect this inquiry, this investigation to be concluded, presented to judiciary and voted upon do we go forward? >> it's a really good question. right now what democrats are looking at is expediency. the timeline i've heard is obviously they'll work through the res send and keep doing this. the end of the intel investigation will likely hinge upon cooperation from the white house. adam schiff said they don't expect them to cooperate. >> mike quigley said the same thing. >> the timeline will likely be truncated. a lot of people are throwing out the timeline of thanksgiving as when they want to see this wrapped up. these investigations wrapped up, articles of impeachment drafted and voted upon before thanksgiving. >> wow, merry christmas. john, your thoughts? what do you think timelinewise?

>> i think abby is exactly right. i think it's important to understand why adam schiff is skipping the "will you come testify" phase and going straight to the subpoena phase. they have the evidence in their possession right now. they're going to flush it out, compel what they can. they recognize during the course of the russia probe, the white house resistance slowed things down, diluted the impact. because this information has come out in such crystal inform, they think they have what they need. they'll say come cooperate. if you end up defying the subpoena or pulling a corey lewandowski and showing contempt, that's okay because we're going to move ahead. i do expect they'll go ahead on roughly the time frame abby talked about, sometime around thanksgiving, and they will, i believe, have a majority in the house to impeach the president. >> it was worth breaking away from michael mcfaul to talk to

you. all good. thank you so much. next, one of the seven freshman congressional democrats taking a stand against the president in a scathing op-ed. kurt voelker, the first to resign. and a connection that friend has to rudy giuliani. has to rudy giuliani hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. ♪upbeat musieverything was so fresh in the beginning. [sniff] ♪ dramatic music♪ but that plug quickly faded. ♪upbeat music luckily there's febreze plug. it cleans away odors and freshens for 1200 hours. [deep inhale] breathe happy with febreze plug. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira.

woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed.

run with us on a john deere 1 series tractor. beacuse changing your attachments, should be as easy as... what about this? changing your plans. yeah. run with us. search "john deere 1 series" for more. it's been reported that there's a cyberattack run with us. on business every 39 seconds. ouch. i don't even want to think about it. comcast business has a solution. we go beyond fast with a cloud-based security system that automatically updates, so you always have the latest protection. phishing. malware. risky sites. it can help block all of that. get fast internet and add comcast business securityedge for just $29.95 a month. it's one less thing for us to worry about. comcast business. beyond fast. juul record. they took $12.8 billion from big tobacco. juul marketed mango, mint, and menthol flavors, addicting kids to nicotine. five million kids now using e-cigarettes.

the fda said juul ignored the law with misleading health claims. now juul is pushing prop c, to overturn san francisco's e-cigarette protections. say no to juul, no to big tobacco, no to prop c. certainly there is an urgency in time. i don't think it's an urgency for expediency.

i think it's an urgency related to wanting to get this done so the president doesn't allow his allies in the court system to stall this past any meaningful analysis. >> house democrats certainly moving full steam ahead in their impeachment inquirely issuing the first subpoena to secretary of state mike pompeo and scheduling depositions from five state department officials to come next week. this is after a whirlwind week in washington. it was five days ago a group of freshmen democratic congressman penned an op-ed saying these allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect. welcome, congressman, glad to talk with you about this. since you and your cleggs published that op-ed, so much has transpired. what is your biggest takeaway from all the revelations we've seen just this week alone? >> my biggest takeaway is it

appears that the president of the united states will stop at nothing to help his personal election prospects. so many of us were appalled by the recent allegations that a sitting president would use military support to one of our allies at war against our adversary russia to benefit himself. it's unprecedented. it hasn't happened before. we truly believe it's time for all of us to come together without regard for partisan affiliation to do what we need to do to defend the country. >> your focus in this op-ed is about the threat to the country's national security. so from a national security standpoint, i'm curious your reaction from the new reporting from the post about the 2017 meeting between the president, sergey lavrov and sergey kislyak. what was at risk from a national security standpoint? >> so much of this involves russia and the threat of russia. to understand that we have to paint a picture of what's happening in your. we have over 50,000 u.s. troops

stationed in europe. we have mutual defense treaty obligations with nato partners. meaning, if one of them is attacked everybody will treat it as if we're attacked. you have ukraine who is at active war with russia. one of the biggest reasons there aren't russian tanks moving in the ukraine today is because of our mutual assistance aid, our security aid and these javelin missile systems we provide to them. the fact that the president is willing to do that, to give tacit consent to foreign minister lavrov during that meeting to have more than a wink and a nod in the phone call with president zelensky is shocking, and it threatens our troops, our national security and we can't allow it to stand. >> do you have a sense of how this process is expected to unto neld congress? do democrats have a plan to wrap this up before the 2020 election? >> you know, i don't think we need to be focused on the 2020 election. i think it's really important that we put politics aside and

do what we need to do to address this issue. the priority in my view is, number one, there's urgency to this for the reasons i just described because there's national security threats here. we have to be urgent, but we have to make sure we're doing it in a thorough way. my focus is going to be on making sure we are proceeding with urgency, that we are being thorough and we understand the facts so we know what we need to do to protect our country. i'm not going to think about the election cycle when i'm making decisions about this. >> congressman crow, how about your constituents? what are they telling you? >> my constituents want to defend the country. they know me very well. i've done hundreds of events in my district over the last couple years. they know i'm somebody dedicated to the defense of this nation and they know i take my oaths seriously, they know i'll continue to fight for health care and gun violence prevention and climate change. but restoring checks and balances and making sure that congress is doing its constitutional role is really important, too. that's what we're going to continue to do, both of those,

move the business of the country forward. but also make sure that we're restoring checks and balances. >> how concerned are you that the business of the country, as you put it, things that voters are going to be concerned about that affect their daily lives may be compromised to some degree by the focus on this inquiry? >> well, my focus is not going to change when it comes to the day-to-day business of congress. one of the examples i've been citing is on wednesday, this past wednesday when everything was blowing up and the transcript was being released, i attended my small business committee hearing. we passed four small business bills out of that committee unanimously, 100% support, republicans and democrats to help promote small business. that doesn't get headlines. so much of the work in congress gets done at the committee level. i'm a part of some very bipartisan committees an efforts. i'll continue to do that work and at the same time uphold my duty and my oath to defend the country. four bills passed in small

business committee. i've made that headline as well. i'm glad you got that out. congressman crow, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. impeachment time crunch. the fine line democrats are walking when it comes to the schedule for a possible vote and the impact of sticking to a shorter time frame. johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you.

i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy. you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

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. why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief

developing this hours, house democrats pushing ahead with an impeachment investigation into the president. my next guest is a democratic representative who tweets, i've read the whistle-blower complaint. it's absolutely clear the president broke the law. then his staff tried to cover it up. the president is running the white house like the mafia. impeach. joining me is ohio representative and 2020 democratic presidential candidate tim ryan. do you believe what you know is enough to draft articles of impeachment at this point? >> i believe so. what happened with this conversation with a foreign leader to try to dig up dirt on joe biden and sisson is reprehensible. i think it's a high crime and misdemeanor. i think donald trump is a cancer

on the body politic here in the united states today and we have got to impeach him. we cannot let this go without taking action. i don't know what the political ramifications are going to be for this. i don't know if it's a winner or loser, but all i know is it has to be done. >> i think the answer to that is how it plays out. let's take a listen to how nancy pelosi is saying about the timing of the impeachment and the investigation. here is that. >> i think we should move with purpose and expeditiously, not hastily though. it doesn't have to drag on. it's no use to say by such and such a date, but looking at the -- shall we say, the material that the administration is giving us, they are actually speeding up the process. >> can an investigation of this magnitude be done both thoroughly and quickly? >> i believe it can. i believe it can. i think we have so many committees that are involved in this process.

it's pretty straightforward. there were many people in the room who can be quickly interviewed, and we have transcripts and memos and all of these things. so i think it can be done rather quickly. i think speaker pelosi has handled this masterfully. she waited until the right moment. i think the country -- you can see in the polls, the country is starting to see what's happening here and what kind of president this is, and i think we can get it done. i've been in congress 17 years, alex. i've watched nancy pelosi operate internally in amazing weighing. i think if she wants this done quickly, it will be done quickly and thoroughly. >> let's take a listen to what the president is saying about your party's impeachment efforts. here is that. >> what these guys are doing, democrats are doing to this country is a disgrace. they're going to tie up our country. we can't talk about gun regulation, we can't talk about anything because frankly,

they're so tied up, so screwed up, nothing gets done except when i do it. >> to which i say charming. but having said that, you said you think things can be done properly and you're not sure about how the political play will be with this. but are you at all concerned that the president's message there could resonate with the public, or do you think you and democrats can convince the public that this investigation is indeed necessary and needs to be a focus? >> i think that message that he has will only appeal to his hard core supporters. i think moderate republicans, independent voters, libertarians, you cannot be a clear-eyed human being and see what just happened with the president, what he tried to do in the ukraine, why he tried to do it, given everything he's done up to this point and not think that he did that and that that's wrong. then he goes off -- this guy is incapable of taking responsibility for anything that

he's ever done. he's gotten away with this his whole life. he's a spoiled rich kid. period, end of story. all of the bankruptcies, all the small businesses that he screwed out of payments over the years, all the union workers that never got paid, the bar tnders, the construction people. he has a long history in his life of not taking responsibility for his actions. so, of course, he calls the president of ukraine, tries to get him to dig up dirt because rules don't apply to donald trump in his own mind, and then he turns around and blames the democrats. alex, when you saw those members, jason crow and others monday come out with military background, cia backgrounds, national security backgrounds saying, we're in trump districts, moderate districts where trump won, but we're going to take a stand on behalf of the country, and we don't know how it will play out politically for us, but we have a duty.

i think that's a signal to the american people of how serious this is. these aren't partisans. these are people who care about their country. we've got to shake loose from this spell that trump has put on certain americans and say he's destroying the institutions. he is a cancer on the body politic. we've got to cut the cancer out. >> this is a very serious issue, why we brought you on to talk about that. it is not a period, end of story, when it comes to you as you're a presidential candidate. we'll have you back and talk about how that is unfolding for you and the policy directives you're supporting. thank you, congressman ryan. >> thanks. my next guest is the friend of a person first to lose his job in this case and what he knows about rudy giuliani right after this break. after this break -their béarnaise sauce here is the best in town.

[ soft piano music playing ] mm, uh, what do you do for fun? -not this. ♪ -oh, what am i into? mostly progressive's name your price tool. helps people find coverage options based on their budget. flo has it, i want it, it's a whole thing, and she's right there. -yeah, she's my ride. this date's lame. he has pics of you on his phone. -they're very tasteful. he has pics of you on his phone. ♪ (music plays throughout)♪

♪ our because of smoking.ital. 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. my dbut now, i take used tometamucil every day.sh it traps and removes the waste that weighs me down, so i feel lighter. try metamucil, and begin to feel what lighter feels like.

johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you.

new fallout today as eight of the president's allies including rudy giuliani and kurt voelker are implicated in the whistle-blower complaint. that is in addition to a dozen white house officials and lawyers. joining me now is nelson cunningham, former federal prosecutor and clinton white house lawyer. welcome back to the broadcast. can i just say you are the man. look at the connections you have to so many people involved here. not only, nelson, is giuliani your former boss, he hired you at the southern district of new york. so i'm curious given all that we know about higgs role in this ukraine situation, how do you think he has handled this?

>> well, you know, last year a group of us got together for a reunion. we had all been hired by him years ago. we've all gone on to do other things. over dinner we looked at each other and we all agreed we don't know this rudy giuliani. this is a different rudy giuliani than the man that we knew who was always hard charging, but was always deadly careful and i'd say fired with dead aim. that's not the rudy giuliani we're seeing today. >> i'm going to add to that and say i was a local news reporter in new york when he was the mayor of new york city. i would say the same thing from a journalistic point of view. do you think giuliani could be the person to take down the trump presidency? what has changed about him? the former rudy giuliani, i'm assuming, would be somebody that had that kind of power and gumption and gusto. what has changed?

could he take down the trump presidency or not? >> i think he's become a television lawyer which is why trump loves him so much. he plays a lawyer on television, he plays a loir that's an over-the-top lawyer. he's good at making situations look messy, very good at saying things and walking them back. he's very good at creating an awful lot of confusion. i think that's what donald trump likes about him. donald trump thinks he positions himself best when he's operating in a world of confusion and of uncertainty and where nobody quite knows what the truth is. in that sense i think rudy giuliani is doing exactly what donald trump wanted him to do. certainly what he was doing in ukraine was exactly what donald trump wanted him to do, to go and stir up ukrainians and dig up dirt on joe biden. >> we could talk about rudy giuliani for quite a period of time. let's get to kurt voelker. you are a former colleague of him as well.

the special envoy for ukraine who has resigned now. what were your initial thoughts about him after reading allegations for him in the complaint? is this something he would do? >> kurt is somebody who is widely respected in washington. a long-time career foreign service officers, served in embassies across europe, deputy assistant secretary for european affairs, u.s. ambassador to nato. after he left the government at the end of the bush administration, since he he served as the head of the mccain institute, think tank at arizona state university designed to carry out john mccain's foreign policy views and his legacy. he's highly respected. i think we're all very surprised to see him in the middle of this in this way. >> i'm curious. when you aren't offering your legal expertise on television, you're leading a global advisory firm. do you believe if the democrats win the fight to get any potential conversations that

trump has had with leaders like putin, like mbs, might the release of those transcripts cause damage to the u.s.? isn't there a danger to releasing these transcripts publicly? >> well, there is. leaders talk to the president. they believe the conversations are confidential. to see them exposed has got to be difficult and embarrassing. at the same time that cannot be enough to keep the wrongdoing of anyone including certainly the president, from being exposed. i think as we learn what other tapes, what other conversations -- not tapes -- what other conversations have been stored on this secret server, i think we may be shocked at what we learned from those. we were certainly shocked about what we learned about this conversation which we didn't even know about three weeks ago. >> nelson cunningham, i know we'll be seeing you again soon. >> thank you. the latest polling on impeachment and it's probably

going to make the president feel uncomfortable. ent feel uncomfortable. undercloud. i am royalty of racing, raise your steins to the king of speed. - [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. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira.

we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here. a little change can make a big difference. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. here's to you. thenot actors, people, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin

from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. new crest gum and sensitivity. ahh brain freeze! no, it's my teeth. your teeth hurt? just sensitivity. i should see my dentist. my teeth have been feeling really sensitive lately. well 80% of sensitivity starts at the gum line,

so treat sensitivity at the source. new crest gum and sensitivity starts treating sensitivity immediately, at the gum line, for relief within days and wraps your teeth in sensitivity protection. ohh your teeth? no, it's brain freeze! new gum and sensitivity from crest. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. new polls revealing an uptick in public sentiment for impeachment.

politico morning concept poll up seven points from last week. hill harris up 12 points since may and others up ten points since may. joining me now, worked in three democratic administrations. msnbc contributor also with us and professor of the lbj school of public affairs and a former speechwriter foresenate majority leader bill frisk. and across the board in the support of impeachment for the white house? >> you are seeing that uptick but also only seeing the opening arguments of the prosecution. it's a snapshot of how people feel today, but doesn't tell us how people will feel as this effort marches on. i would also say that democrats are going to look at not just that national number but looking at it in terms of demographics and regionally, because there's still moderate democrats in districts flipped from red to blue and could be problematic

for them. >> peter, a point there. lessons in this shift for democrats in congress she's basically saying, hey, a snapshot now and down the road could change. what are the lessons here? >> the lesson is we don't look at these polls particularly other than a matter of conversation because we don't know if those people will vote at the end of all this information. second, the only vote that matters is in the u.s. senate. the big difference for democrats in the 1974 nixon impeachment when i was adviser to the judiciary committee, people were afraid of committing perjury whether in the white house, executive branch or department of justice. there is no fear. the corey lewandowski dictum, lie, lie, lie. democrats have to figure out how to hold people to the truth. >> and a wide range of positions on this president. how much does it matter whether voters are or are not convinced about impeachment? >> look, i think the impeachment

process is a beautiful part of our democratic process where the process is played out. we see the facts. that being said, alex, they can't lose sight of the bread and butter issues, the day-to-day issues. the impeachment is going on. whatever may come of that, but for voters, the top issue of concern is health care, the economy, education. so democrat s need to be really careful they don't get far away from the bread and butter issues and consumed by the impeachment process which could take months. >> how closely will voters watch the im the impeachment? >> alex, asking politics in politics? of course both sides looking at voter sentiment. another polling number not good for this effort currently economist it's finds the public has, only 14% of the public has trust in congress. that's not good for trying to go down this road. and to the professor's point, in

terms of what else can get done in washington when all of the day is filled up with impeachment? we just saw the new york governor andrew cuomo, a democrat, saying impeachment is a dead end and pushes those important issues off of the table and out of the public consciousness and just focuses everybody on the wrong thing. >> quickly, peter, the trump campaign reports a $15 million increase since this announcement by nancy pelosi about impeachment. can democrats match that? what do we have to do to get their campaigns as well pulling in the coffers? >> there are 10 or 12 candidates. it's hard to determine what this boost is for the democrats. there's just donald trump and his campaign. it would make sense his supporters are pouring money in. we have to see whether or not people respond to individual democrats or wait for a nominee. >> one more question about big money. a head layne frline from cnbc.

warning the party with will sit back and back trump if you nominate elizabeth warren. how concerning is that? >> extremely concerning for the democratic parties specially as they see her surging in the iowa case past biden. hope for the democratic party if she becomes the nominee she will moderate that stance and wall street will join in, but we shall see. >> peter, aimee, victoria, we're out of time. live to the global citizen festival next. thanks, guys. >> thank you. but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers.

fisher investments. clearly better money management. 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. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy. 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. johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born

we never stop taking care of you.

in two hours the global citizen festival kicks off here in new york city. part of a larger effort to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. in central park as is nbc's savannah sellars who joins us. savannah, can't wait to see you soon. give us a preview of what's to come. >> reporter: hey, alex. so excited to see you, too. we are right here in central park as you said and the gates are just about to open at 2:00 p.m. eastern. usually when that happens people are literally sprinting in right past me up to the front to try to get the best spot they can. 60,000 global citizens estimated to be here today, but what is super cool all of those people took actions to get their tickets. actually had to work like tweeting at senators and signing petitions to get at the goal you

mentioned, ending poverty by 2030. i heard alicia keys soundtrak. amazing. everybody here for queen, excited about it. you'll see that shortly. msnbc broadcasts from up there later tonight. alex, the best view starting at 4:00 p.m. >> we'll be watching. seeing you. thanks, savannah. all of you be sure to catch the festival from central park beginning toegd at 4:00 eastern here on msnbc. okay, kendis gibson, top of the hour. over to you now. i think people need to stay up and watch queen. probably they're the last group to perform. >> it's going to be a long night. looking forward to seeing alicia keys as well, i know. >> alex, enjo your saturday. >> thank you. hello, everybody. i'm kendis gibson here at msnbc headquarters in new york. the "new york times" reporting the white house use add highly classified computer system to score transcripts of calls between president trump, vladimir putin and the royal saudi family.