that will do it for a busy afternoon and busy weekend for that matter on msnbc live. i'll be back next saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. news continues now with richard lui. new today for you on the impeachment inquiry into president trump, according to the representative who will lead the house investigation, the whistleblower will testify in

closed testimony very soon. >> have you reached an agreement with the whistleblower and his or her attorneys providing the information first-hand? >> yes, we have. and as director magire promised during the hearing, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the justice department or from the white house. >> democrats have laid out a timeline of testimony from some of the major players in the ukraine whistleblower controversy. here you see it. five senior state department officials are scheduled to give depositions before the house in the next two weeks. there is no republican support as of yet for impeachment to date. the president's personal attorney, though, rudy giuliani was telegraphing an unwillingness from republicans to work with democrats. >> i wouldn't cooperate with adam schiff. i think adam schiff should be removed.

if they wutput a neutral person, if i had a judge in a case and he announced i'm going to impeach and went ahead and did a whole false episode, wouldn't i move to recuse that judge? >> republicans, they are hoping that the impeachment push will be unpopular enough to propel donald trump to reelection in 2020. president trump earlier tweeted support for that idea that voters in trump districts will seek to defend him saying he'll win big in 2020. there is evidence that more americans are beginning to warm to the idea of impeachment. according to a new pole, 63% of americans say the allegations that president trump encouraged the ukrainian president to investigate the bideens are quote serious. joining us now to break it all down, david jackson, former republican congressman from florida and david jolly. michelle goldberg also with us. david, what is the latest that

we're hearing from adam schiff? we did hear david jackson that schiff does have and has secured that the whistleblower will be testifying in closed testimony in front of the committee. >> i think most people expect that that will give his say to the house intelligence committee. >> what does that mean? >> they'd go behind closed doors and the whistleblower would tell them what he thinks president trump did. the difference is that intelligence committee members will get a chance to question him and find out how he found out about this and who within the trump administration told him about the president's effort to get the ukraine president to investigate joe biden? >> is this a large development if you are watching this investigation that adam schiff has secured this? >> i think it is clear that the

whistleblower wanted to talk and he actually took heroic risks in order to be able to talk and get the word out to this committee. it's not surprising. to me what is notable is how fast they're moving. the fact that they are going to be starting depositions in a matter of days. they are bringing this forward very quickly. i think that that is important because the way that republicans have chosen to combat this is just with an absolute flurry of lies, disinformation, deflection, confusion. inas much as democrats can kind of be very tight and disciplined, it allows them to control the narrative somewhat. >> and i want to go to number five on fox news sunday with steven miller. the defense of at least the white house's stance on this move towards the impeachment inquiry was this, and i'll play that for you now and then get to

you. >> i worked in the federal government now for nearly three years. i know what the deep state looks like. i know the difference between a whistleblower and a deep state operative. this is a deep state operate chb pure and simple. people who haven't worked in the white house may not appreciate this, but the situation is you vaf group of unelect aed bureaucrats who think that they need to take down this president. >> david jolly, in addition to that steechben miller did say that this was a partisan that had come forward, that this was not a whistleblower skbrjust bee he had undertaken the whistleblower process. is this the laying out of the strategy that will be coming from republican whz they do hear the whistleblower testimony? >> part of it at best that is discussed in character assassination and at worst it is a conspiracy theory by one of the senior advisers to the

president of the united states completely unfounded conspiracy theory. what kwlou a what you are seeing are three main counter narratives that republicans are pushing. first is the call with the ukraine and with holding of aid, pressure, there was no quid pro quo. there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo and it is important that democrats that don't get into a debate over that. the second is attacking the whistleblower and the third ish and to michelle's earlier point, i think she used the word tight. it is important that democrats take firm control, not just of the process, but also of the narrative because what the white house will try to do every day is disrupt it. and what is encouraging about the depositions moving so quickly is that the house is in recess for two weeks. unlike after the mueller report

where you really didn't hear from democrats, it appears democrats are going to move and work during the two weeks. very important good move. >> with the words of advice, stand by a little bit. we will bring in our next guest, california congressman, one of the seven democratic a freshmen from districts who won by trump who penned an op-ed last week. representative, you heard what david jolly was saying. are you moving forward in a firm way? >> well, we need to get to the bottom of this. the american people deserve to know the answer of what actually happened with this phone call, what the president was doing and trying to entice a foreign government to get involved in our elections and putting our national security at risk. so we need to move quickly. that's what the chairman is doing. we are moving in a speedily fashion to make sure that the

american people have answers to the questions that they need to know. >> representative, you heard what the president's advisers said. how would you respond to his statements that we just heard. >> they continue to fabricate different things whether it's a deep state or fabricating information about vice president biden. the truth is the president betrayed his oath to the constitution. he put our national security at risk by with holding funds to an ally that was engaged in combat against one of our adversaries, that adversary being russia. and he did this in order to get them to drag dirt and to manufacture dirt for a potential presidential opponent in the upcoming general election. and this is really what it is all about. that's what it is about. it's not about any deep state. it's not about any other thing that they are trying to manufacture. this is about national security

and the president was willing to put the united states national security at risk for his own personal and political gain. >> is it possible that all of these skacenarios that you've ld out, is it possible that those things could be possible along with that this president did undertake activities that are impeachable? >> well, like we said in the op-ed, the information we were getting at the beginning as the story was breaking and the fact that the president was going to the ukraine and telling them to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent and with holding money that congress allocated for ukraine so that they can combat russia, we said that was an impeachable offense and was important for us to get to the bottom of this. i think that's what is going on right now and that is what is going on right now. like i said, the american people deserve to know answers. i think chairman schiff is doing a great job in making sure everything is moving fast so we

can get answers. >> if you have the vote in front of you right now, i know the inquiry is just beginning at this moment, would you vote for impeachment. >> i'm not going to go over any hypothetical situations. i think right now we are in an investigative phase. we're gathering information. that's the important part of this process. i know the intelligence committee will continue to do that and so will the other committees. i think foreign affairs and oversight will continue. they're all going to work together to make smur we investigate this matter so that we get all the information possible so that we can make the case not only to the congress, but to the american peoplem. >> as you know the possibility in the impeachment process is that requests for a larger investigation is possible here. do you believe that's needed or do you believe in the abilities of the committees to move forward in a way that is best for this country? >> right now, i think the committees are moving forward with their process. we need to let that work out. i think everything is going

according to plan right now as to, you know, representative adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee is one of the most respected people in congress and one of the most respected individuals in the country. we have full faith and confidence that he will run this impeachment inquiry as effective as possible and he'll get to the bottom of this. >> the personal attorney for president trump said he already has an opinion on the process and should not be part of leading this investigation. your response to his criticism. >> i think rudy giuliani has his own opinions on this and it's all about protecting the president from the wrong doing that he was doing. again, the president betrayed his oath of office to the constitution and rudy giuliani is doing nothing more than trying to protect it. our job is to protect the constitution. >> democratic congressman of the great state of california, thank

you so much. >> thank you. back with us, our panel. some republicans are saying rudy giuliani please stop talking. is he causing more trouble now than maybe what the president wants? >> i mean, presumably the president could fire him as his personal lawyer. i'm not sure who is paying him. if the president wanted to rein him in he could. both trump and giuliani seem to have this plan that they have used in the past which is if you admit to the crimes on television, it almost kind of sets people back a little bit. they think it can't be that bad if they're just saying it out loud. i hope that democrats and journalists are becoming a little bit savvier and realizing that a confession on television can be a smoking gun just as much as one unearthed from a secret server somewhere. giuliani seems sort of panicked. it's not clear to me how much he

believes. i think he might believe, he seems like he is a pretty addled old man. i think he might believe some conspiracy theories. as well as all of this garbage about joe biden which is the opposite of the truth. inas much as he kind of realizes that he has gotten into a position where he seems to be a party to a criminal conspiracy and if we had a functioning justice department which we don't, he might already be the subject of an investigation and bill barr is not going to be running the department of justice forever. rudy giuliani started out as a celebrated prosecutor might end it in prison. he seems 250 be sort of flailing about trying to find allize so that he's not named the fall guy for this debacle.

>> i want toask the question of david jackson, who is paying rudy giuliani? when we look at the representation that he represents for the president, the criticism has been put out there president trump why are you using a private attorney to investigate affairs of state that should be through those who are part of the government, the united states government? one such individual who is at odds with the white house right now joseph maguire. right up against steven miller. steven miller saying his three years potentially as form udable as the aulsh folmost four decad- >> who is paying him? he has been having to talk about this for months going back to march and april talk about the need for ukraine and the need for journalists to investigate biden and what hunter biden was doing in ukraine.

he is neck deep in this thing. it's interesting to see how he handles it. there is talk that the house may try to subpoena him. it's going to be quite a fight moving forward. we're going to hear an awful lot about rudy's activities. >> the play book, the energy that we might expect coming from the white house. you heard the energy in the little bit that we played. >> it is. i think the other strategy is delay, delay, delay. what the administration learned during the mueller investigation and since the report is just delay. this is where i think it's very important for democrats to lean in. the democrats have what they need. the president's first statement after the story broke was yes i did pressure them. united states senators have corroborated. the democrats have the confession. i would encourage them to consider doing this. don't get in long drawn out battles over subpoenas. simply set the calendar and say we will have four weeks of

hearings and we are voting on week five. if you want to come defend yourself, you're welcome to do so. if you're not going to cooperate, we are moving forward to a vote with or without you. play offense mptd we learned that the delay tactics are one of the greatest tools the white house has. >> it seems their energy the democrats have that very play that you're talking about. great discussion. thank you all three of you. have a great sunday. >> thank you. coming up, all the president's men. after the release of the whistleblower complaint, four of president trump's closest allize nallize -- allies coming under intense scrutiny. - allies coming under scrutiny. hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. 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. i am royalty of racing, i am the twisting thundercloud. raise your steins to the king of speed. ♪ (music plays throughout)♪ ♪ like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa.

proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. some of the following has spoiling this is us for the few who haven't seen it. season 4 of this is us is almost here. to catch every past episode, just say "this is us" into your xfinity voice remote. like the one where i... [ buzzer ] or the one where we show... [ buzzer ] when he was a... [ buzzer ] plus you can watch this is us

anywhere with xfinity stream app. especially the... [ buzzer ] episode. awww, that one's my favorite. catch every episode of this is us with xfinity. it's the idea that if our mothers were diagnosed with cancer, how would we want them to be treated? that's exactly how we care for you. with answers and actions. to hear your concerns, quiet your fears, lift your spirits. that's the mother standard of care. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

as the impeachment inquiry into president trump ramps up, four closest allies are finding themselves in scrutiny. rudy giuliani, mike pompeo, william barr and mick mull veiny. rudy giuliani was named over 30 times in the whistleblower's complaint. at least seven democratic senators have renewed calls for the justice department national security division to look into whether he is in compliance with foreign lobbying laws. giuliani says he was directed by the state department to engage with crane ynukrainen officials

secretary of state mike pompeo for his side was subpoenaed friday to turn over documents related to trump's call by october 4th. attorney general bill barr was put into the spotlight wednesday when the white house released a memo. that's when it was revealed that president trump had mentioned barr has someone who can potentially help ukraine investigate the former vice president. the department of justice says that barr has not contacted ukraine officials nor was he asked to do so by president trump. they also say that he did not speak with giuliani about ukraine. and all eyes also on mick mulvaney as president trump is reportedly inferiorated with the failure to have a response with the fallout. the white house pushed back on the story calling it

manufactured palace intrigue. mulvaney is also allegedly the person who directed the state department to with hold the aid to ukraine. f joining us now chris ripple author of "the gatekeepers" and how the chiefs of staff defined every presidency which has a new chapter on president trump. we have laid out those who might be in the cross hairs of the investigation. of the four, who do you think is most at risk here, legal jeopardy wise? >> everybody is in trouble here. you have to begin with rudy giuliani who obviously inhabits a planet of his own. you know, compared to rudy giuliani, martha mitchell who was the loose canon of water gate was a paragon of sobriety. he's clearly completely out of

control. >> what about those who are representatives of the government of the united states. to me the striking thing what's so revealing is what it reveals about trump. almost astonishing gullibility on trump's part. this is someone who i think believes this tin foil hat stuff that giuliani is feeding to him, the idea that hillary clinton's e-mail server is in the basement in the ukraine. to me that is astonishing and it would be amusing if not for the fact that this person is president of the united states. >> just in this week, we have seen that the soldiers of the

president of the united states aren't agreeing with each other. it's rim nissant of the summer of 1974 when the long knives were out and administration figures began to look after themselves. we're starting to see that happen. i think that barr clearly has to try to separate the state department from what giuliani was up to. he may or may not separate the department of justice. he may or may not succeed at that. it's hard to be sympathetic to barr. this is a bed that he made and he now has to lie in. and i think as far as pompeo's concerned, i would never underestimate pompeo. pompeo has to separate the state

department. he has questions to answer about the ambassador. but he is a savvy, smart operator. and compared to the others, i would never bet against mike pompeo. >> last sunday we saw two members of the cabinet at least come out and defend the president. why didn't we see mick mulvaney or anybody else in the cabinet come forward? >> it's complete nonsense. this is a myth that goes back to richard nixon who used to talk about the clowns out at langley. he was convinced were out to get him. it wasn't true then. it's not true now. >> the essence of the whistleblower's complaint has already been confirmed by the notes that were supplied by the trump white house itself.

so it's really an idiotic notion. as for mulvaney, if one were teaching a course on how to be white house chief of staff, one of the rules would be do not let the president conduct a mafia style shake down of a foreign leader in return for dirt on your political opponent. >> this coming week, we're going to be watching what adam schiff does. it's very key if they want to achieve some level of success, of progress. what are you watching this week? >> i think what you want is for adam schiff to follow the rodyno model. that was the gold standard for an impeachment. you is to be objective but move expeditiously. i think it's all of the evidence that will be more important. i'm surprised that subpoenas weren't sent on friday for all of the stuff that's in the

classified server. you know, you want to get that stuff. you want to move expeditiously. >> it's only 4:26 eastern time. thank you so much. appreciate your time. up next, we will take a deep dive into the process of impeachment. how it all works and what everyone needs to know as we watch the proceedings ramping up this coming week in congress. ep this coming we iekn congress. (classical music playing throughout)

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. 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. to call yourself an explorer? traveling to the darkest depths of the ocean. pushing beyond the known horizon. passing through... "hey mom," "can we get fro-yo?", >>"yeah, fro-yo." "yes."

the all-new 2020 ford explorer st. with intelligent 4wd and terrain management system. it's the greatest exploration vehicle of all time. in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune, causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever.

the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life. welcome back. in the coming week the airways will be with the words impeachment inquiry. it starts with any member of the house asking for an impeachment proceeding to be considered. it is up to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi to say yes at which time we reach the phase. nancy pelosi did approve that on tuesday. and so begins the house of representatives investigating. it is assembling right now charges involving treason, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanors. the six house investigating committees intelligence, oversight and reform, foreign

affairs, financial services and ways and means, those six then send the strongest evidence that they can find to the judiciary committee. that's when the impeachment starts. that committee now headed by jerry nadler decides whether to approve the articles of impeachment for a vote in the full house. then the votes are on the charges. majority 218 is needed for this to pass articles of impeachment. that threshold could be close given that 225 democrats and one independent are in favor of at least the impeachment inquiry phase but not to pass articles of impeachment. if the house approves the articles, the president of the united states is officially considered impeached. if impeached, the next question is shall the president be essentially found guilty and removed based on the approved charges from the house? the senate decides on that.

the chief justice of the united states presides over that trial in the senate. and a super majority of 67 votes is needed. they must say yes to do so. the president, if that happens is then removed from office. the vice president then takes over. this final step, by the way, that we're talking about where the vice president is running the country has never been reached in our country's history. andrew johnson and bill clinton were impeached meaning the house approved the charges against them, but neither got the senate votes to convict and remove them from office. richard nixon resigned before the house impeachment proceedings could begin. joining us now is harvard university law professor and author of impeachment a citizens guide. thank for being with us. let's start with the charges, high crimes and misdemeanors.

what might constitute that? from what we know about what the committees are considering, are we there? >> we know from the constitutional background thoot we're talking about gross abuse of presidential authority. reading the declaration of independent is a clue. it doesn't have to be a crime. it can be an abuse of authority that doesn't violate the technical criminal law. if it is a violation of criminal law, it might not be impeachable. jaywalking would not be a high crime and misdemeanor. the things we have now in the ballpark include the arguable obstruction of justice with respect to the russia investigation and also the phone call with the ukrainian president. both i think are in the ballpark and are worth considering. policy disagreements are not. uses of twitter not so much,

barbaric rhetoric, very hard to say that's an impeachable offense. >> is it possible to have scope creep in this very investigation by the house? >> completely. so in the case of nixon impeachment proceedings, there was tax violations by president nixon which were seriously considered as a basis for impeachment. if the process is working it will become extremely politicized not only in the sense that democrats and republicans disagree, but in the sense that there are political mash nations. so probably the right thing to do and the sense of the gravity and enormity and aspirational nutrality i think is part of our constitutional duty here is to be as focussed and narrow as

possible and clear and convincing foundations for articles of impeachment. >> what is the kmek and fwlans to the house at the moment? if they do move forward and pass the articles of impeachment, what's the check and balance that the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors were accurately used in the determination for the articles? >> the oath of office and democratic process itself. so there has been talk with the president maybe violated his oath of office. the members of the house of representatives have an oath of office, also. that requires really that they do their homework not only with respect to the facts, but also focussing on hamilton who spoke about abuse of authority and james madison who had some things to say about what would constitute an impeachable offense. not withstanding the political

authorization, members of the house have been doing their constitutional due diligence here by and large and not rushing to impeachment. and they trigger the conversation with the ukraine which is certainly in the ballpark of the kind of thing -- >> so great to have you from harvard university law school. thank you so much. >> thank you. pleasure. joining us now to talk about the legal side, former u.s. attorney. katie, a lot has been discussed. you heard the description of what they might consider as they move forward with the impeachment inquiry. the defense so far from what we heard from steven miller and rudy giuliani is deep state as well as a biassed chair heading the intel committee.

are those good defenses to what might be moving forward in the impeachment process? >> so those are not recognized legal defenses anywhere. of course, somebody who is going to be the accused is going to say that the prosecution inthat is what you are going to call the house democrats that they are biassed or prejudice in some way. that is not a viable legal defense coming out of the rudy giuliani steven miller camp. if that's the only thing that they have to offer, then donald trump is going to have an exceptionally difficult uphill battle to defend himself when it makes it to the senate. it's really important to note that there is no legal obligation for the senate to actually conduct a trial. there is no obligation for that to happen. in fact, mitch mcconnell can say i think it's flimsy even though the house votes the articles of impeachment through and can say we are not going to do this. the optic would not make sense. i think it would be political pressure from republicans and from trump himself to make the trial happen in the senate.

the chief justice of the united states supreme court would preside over it and it would be a trial with evidence presented and it doesn't have to be limited to just the facts surrounding the calls to the ukraine and the pressure put on ukraine in that quid pro quo that's been announced. he indicated it doesn't require crime t. can just be a violation of the public trust. and in doing so frankly the house can look into other acts and incidents that were committed by donald trump in furtherance of the violation of the public trust. >> as we look at the defense so far, deep state partisan, as well, just playing devil's advocate here, let's say that those are true. would that weaken the case as the house moves forward against donald trump? >> i think part of those defenses are something you commonly hear in criminal cases by the accused. often times you will hear about

prosecutorial misconduct. i don't find they are very viable and they will not really work. those are not clear defenses. this is part of the spin that has come out. we'll see what happens. the impeachment inquiry needs to move forward. it needs to move forward deliberately but with some speed now. i think it's really important for the democrats to do this in a process that is about stacking all the evidence. there is never one piece of evidence in the case that makes a whole case. this is why federal criminal trials take two to three weeks. it's important for the process to bring into the record all of the facts. there will be a lot of stone walling along the way, but that's part of the job for the house to move forward. >> the chief justice here that will oversee a trial, a potential trial in the senate, how strong of a role as an arbiter of what is discussed and what is voted and how the vote

goes will the chief justice have over the process? >> so the chief justice needs to just call balls and strikes like most judges should do when they are sitting on the bench. they should make rulings based upon the senate rules of procedure. those exist. they're not just things that are theoretically in existence. i want to emphasize a key point. unlike in a civil case or a criminal case, there are clearly defined burdens of proof. in a criminal case it is to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. however, in a senate impeachment trial, there is no defined aburden of proof. each individual senator has to rely upon his or her conscience to make a determination as to whether or not a case has been made against donald trump in this case in terms of whether or not it meets that violation of high crimes and misdemeanors. so the absence of a defined burden of proof can pose a serious challenge to be able to achief an actual conviction in the senate should donald trump

have to face an impeachment trial. >> putting on your former u.s. attorney hat, you had to make a decision based on the evidence available to us today, do we see something for something? >> of course. based on what you see now, you do. i think this might be one of the most important points to make. the initial focus that the quid pro quo wasn't clear in the transcript of the call, i have been a federal prosecutor for 16 years. i have never actually once had a case where a criminal has expressly either in writing or orally put down that quid pro quo. we understand that when there is criminal wrong doing we have to use things like circumstantial evidence and inferences and the use of common sense. >> what part of what we have read so far tells you there is quid pro quo, something for something?

>> we know that there is a timeline that is actually very troubling. if you just look even on a more hyperlocal level in terms of looking at the events of just april until about now, what you realize in the transcript, i need you to do me a favor the day after mueller's hearing. in the transcript he makes reference to the fact that he was so unimpressed by mueller. he understood. he knew at that point an argument can be made that he was now going to be free from impeachment on any of the original russian inquiries. so he got brazen enough to say to the ukraine you need to play ball. you need to do me a favor. right before that favor, there was a withdrawal. there was the holding off on 400 34i8 yn dolla million in foreign aid. we see this in movie and television. i have an offer you can't refuse. >> thank you for your time today. great to have two experts like

yourself on the show. we'll be right back. yourself on the show. we'll be right back. joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack.

♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums

thand find inspiration who win new places.ct... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. 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. >> vo: my car is more than four wheels.y? it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

we have some breaking news on the impeachment proceedings ongoing. let's go straight to white house correspondent kelly o'donnell with the breaking news this hour. what are we learning. >> reporter: our nbc news team has been working on this trying to get a sense of how the white house is positioning itself to respond to the democrats' efforts on capitol hill to open

and investigate and go through this impeachment inquiry. what we have been learning our team reporting that the without counsel and the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney would be among a group presenting to the president in the days ahead, a plan for rapid response how they would have the messaging from the white house to defend the president on impeachment. of course, that encompasses the issues of the ukraine call and the whistleblower complaint and all that we've been talking about over this last ten days or so and how best to deal with that. certainly, the white house is not going as far as calling this a war room, something that people have bristled against publicly and in fact the campaign has what it would call a war room. this would be inside the white house where they would have a team that would bring the legal knowledge of the white house, communications and political knowledge together in a sort of

organized fashion that would address this in a more specific way as we go forward and not simply the regular organization of a white house that doesn't have this sort of rapid response unit. so our reporting is that this kind of a presentation could happen for the president in the days ahead for him to decide how he wants to go forward. we have seen a president who is often his own chief defending. you have seen that using twitter, but a more coordinated plan especially with sensitive legal ieshz. so our reporting suggests that while the president has personal lawyers and lawyers who work for the government, a campaign arm on the outside active and responding, that there is plan underway for a more focussed unit within the white house to respond to these issues going forward. >> so kelly these would at least from what we know right now, i know it's early, these would be employees of the white house to make that distinction of rudy

giuliani and others? and why not use the word war room? >> reporter: well, i think that to call it a war room according to some officials suggests that they would somehow be under attack, and the white house has not yet kind of a mode. the president can say we're at war when he is talking publicly about the issue of impeachment saying to his supporters through twitter that democrats are just trying to take him out of office. he can use that language, but i think those in the white house want to be a little bit more nuanced about this. they argue the president didn't do anything that rises to the level of an impeachable offense that his conduct is appropriate. that's the defense of the white house. their view is they will have to respond to matters of impeachment from capitol hill but not trying to take a hunkered down approach but more on offense, if you will, semantics can matter in those

ways. that's part of what we're hearing from people we've been talking to. >> do you know what rapid is and what might not be rapid? have responses so far in the context of the years you've been reporting been fast or slower? this is hard to say because we're facing an impeachment inquiry which is very unique. >> we looked to what the president said. he thought the impeachment issue was over. it was unlikely to move forward and nancy pe lolosi had been signaling that as well. the events of the whistle-blower complaint and ukraine call have happened very rapidly. it's only been fewer than two weeks that this has been publicly known and we're now in a very different posture where more than 225 democrats on capitol hill are for an impeachment inquiry. that's a different situation and it's happened very quickly. the white house is recognizing that it needs an organized

approach in how to deal with this. that's something one way to compare this would be when they had a supreme court nomination with brett kavanaugh which began in a very traditional sense and then there were allegations made against him and they had to have a much more focused and quick response to deal with those allegations. that was something that happened within the white house and within the team they assembled. it might be more comparable to that, for example. you have people who have lots of different jobs and different lines of reporting and different duties. when you create something that's a bit more organized around a specific set of issues, impeachment, the ukraine call, whistle-blower and give people certain responsibilities that way, it can help focus the white house. this is all about having a coordinated message to support the president. if he goes along with this, he would be the one to make the decision. >> kelly o'donnell with the

breaking news from the white house. thank you for that. joinings now senior national security skpocorrespondent for defense one. thanks for joining us and the system reportedly there's, at the moment, potentially, the transcript, potentially verbatim of what was discussed. what do we know about it? >> what's happened here is there's one system that the national security council uses that is like 99% of the work that the nsc does. it can handle material up to top secret level and this is what the white house uses for most of its stuff. it's sensitive diplomatic calls. there's this so called code word level server that's all of the super, super secret service that is really the top level of classified material that is handled through the white house.

it's things like covert action programs. perhaps very, very early details of very internationally sensitive talks like perhaps the kind of talks that went in at the beginning of the iran nuclear deal. what we have seen is that -- >> who would have access to that? >> it's a small group of people. >> like? >> what we have seen is after the details of some of president trump's earlier conversations with the president of australia and mexico were leaked, the white house really sought to tamp down on the number of people that could have access to details of president trump's calls. >> how many people have access at this high level? >> we don't have an exact number but it's a small number. >> potentially, the reporting has been there could be more data similar to this whistle-blower -- this whistle-blower's statements going forward and this whistle-blower transcript.

>> now we're starting to see reporting there's also conversations that the president had with russian president vladimir pu t vladimmir putin as well as with the saudi crown prince that have been kept on this code word level server. if you talk to democrats on capitol hill they see this as a cover up. they see this as an effort to obscure these conversations. republicans say he's just protecting against a leaky white house. at the end of the day there are rules that govern how information is classified. >> i wanted to ask you that. is it ethical? is it legal? just 30 seconds. >> there is a white house rule that says you are not allowed to classify material just to keep it from leaking out just because it's politically lly embarrassr because it might basically be embarrassing to the president. you can only do it if it's going to damage national security if

that information becoming pub c public. >> thank you so much on those servers we have been talking about this week. coming up, presidential candidate senator michael bennett joins al sharpton to discuss the latest in his campaign and whether he will stay in the 2020 race despite low polling numbers so far. that's minutes away on politics nation. on politics nation 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.

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. 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 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.

that will do it for me this week. join me back here next saturday

and sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern. for now, turn it over to reverend al sharpton and "politics nation." good evening and welcome to "politics nation." live from cleveland, ohio tonight. tonight's lead, he gave us no choice. despite the uncertainty that has and will no doubt define the rest of the trump presidency, two questions was settled this week. one, would there ever be a tipping point in which house speaker nancy pelosi would believe her caucus had enough to cover two impeach president trump and two would rank and file house democrats still mostly divided on this issue until just a few