"kasie dc" right here on msnbc. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. and then there were two, two potential smoking guns, two inside accounts from trump allies, people in touch with both the white house and the ukrainians, people who suspected that military aid for ukraine had become tied to the ukrainian government committing to conducting an investigation that would damage donald trump's political opponents. the first was u.s. diplomat bill taylor who wrote this in an encrypted message that was made public by the congressional committees investigating the matter. quote, are we now saying that security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? that same career diplomat, bill taylor, also wrote this. quote, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help

with a political campaign. a trump-appointed diplomat would respond with a cia message disavowing him of that message. but taylor wasn't the only person who was starting to suspect that the president had tied military aid for u.s. ally to investigations that would advance his political objectives. the second we are learning today was republican senator ron johnson who told the "wall street journal" he heard accounts of a potential quid pro quo from that journal report. quote, in an interview senator ron johnson said he learned of a potential quid pro quo from the u.s. ambassador to the e.u. gordon sondland who told him that aid to ukraine was tied to the desire by mr. trump and his allies to have kiev undertake investigations that the president has sought. that right there, the connection of military aid for ukraine to donald trump's political operations is what lies at the center of this fast-moving scandal that has ensnared the president and his cabinet

including multiple diplomats. one such dip mart is former envoy to the ukraine kurt volker who at this hour yesterday was behind closed doors in the first deposition of the house impeachment investigation. his nine and a half hours of testimony yielding a treasure trove of what may come to be known as the 2019 version of the nixon tapes, encrypted messages and texts including this one which volker sent to a ukrainian official the morning of the july 25th phone call between donald trump and ukraine that's at the center of the scandal. that message read, quote, heard from white house assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate/, quote, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. we will nail down date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. kurt volker is also now reported to have engaged in highly questionable efforts to get the ukrainians to play along with

the president by releasing a statement committing to those political investigations the president was seeking. that is based on new reporting in the "new york times." all of this bursting into the open as trump clings to his own personal reality vehemently denying to reporters that there was a quid pro quo involved in his ukraine policy, despite all this mounting evidence to the contrary. the president also insisting his message to ukraine was all about corruption, not politics. though one key question from a reporter may have coaxed out a little bit of truth. uth. >> you know, we would have to look. >> that's where we start today with the reporters in the front lines of this story washington correspondent for the "new york times" mike schmidt, jake sherman, and carol lee plus former federal prosecutor.

let me start with you, one day, one witness, 9 1/2 hours and the kind of text messages that pierce right through all the noise and all the smoke. a career diplomat putting into writing what is at the center of this whistle-blower complaint, what is at the center of really the only unanswered question which is whether or not there was a quid pro quo in writing understood by the people carrying out donald trump's ukraine policy. >> someone made the point to me today, and i just was talking to my colleagues about this. everything in politics is kind of a quid pro quo. so it doesn't actually need to be said, right? i mean, the president has immense power over ukraine, whether it's machinery, weapons, whatever it is. it doesn't need to be said. that's one point of view. i just want to get back to what you said at the top there, which is these text messages and the subsequent reporting by mike and others at multiple outlets shows that donald trump is using the machinery, the gears of the federal government, to try to

tear down joe biden and his son hunter. the difference of opinion appears to be whether that's right or wrong. whether it's part of an effort to root out corruption by the way, an effort that seems to have just started in recent months has not been an underpinning of the president's foreign policy throughout the last couple months. remember, he said in many cases it's not worth trying to change countries' behave are yos. so this has not been a behavior he's tried to change. we are seeing a lot of procedural arguments from republicans. today the inspector general for the intelligence community is still in a hearing. we are now going on about more than six hours with republicans and democrats. and i was just talking to a democrat in the room who has said that republicans have been complaining about what kind of questions and how many questions they could ask. and you see publicly republicans are pushing for a vote on -- starting an impeachment inquiry which isn't actually mandated,

but they want to try to inject these kind of, what democrats consider to be tangential arguments into this because in their, in democrats' view, they believe they are trying to object advice kate what's going on. and i think it's important to note. and it's very telling that they've been in this hearing which they expect it to last three or four hours now for quite as long in the capitol basement with the inspector general who arguably started this whole impeachment process. >> well, because you brought us there, let's stay there for a second, jake. let's remind -- there are so many new figures now sort of thrust into our living rooms. the person that's testifying on capitol hill today is the watchdog, the inspector general for the intelligence community. he was the one that actually received the whistle-blower complaint and then took the substance of that complaint which we've all seen now, those seven pages and went out and corroborated it, interviewed some of the whistle-blower

sources and determined that the whistle-blower complaint was both kredible and urgent. donald trump seems to be doing his best to give it the same seal of approval by confessing to everything in the whistle-blower account. but what did we understand democrats and republicans to be seeking from the intelligence community today? >> that's a very good question. two things. both the substance of the complaint they want to know more about what happened, who the whistle-blower heard it from. so the substance. but also the process. how it was handled, whether that was proper or not. a democrat literally just texted me from the hearing presumably, someone who was in the hearing who said you have to be living on fantasy island to not be concerned with this. and they said that this person who was in the hearing said their argument was strengthened for impeachment. more lines of defense were closed off. now you've seen republicans make the argument that the whistle-blower did not have first hand knowledge. and now they're making the

argument, this is a new argument that just came up today that adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, is a material witness because the whistle-blower talked to his staff before he went to the inspector general. so trying to ensnare and call into question adam schiff's credibility in this manner, which is a relatively new line of inquiry for republicans who are desperately trying to defend the president and undermine this probe and basically and also not make any bones about it. they see their role on capitol hill in the house minority to protect the president who they feel is under unfair incoming fire from democrats despite behind the scenes a lot of republicans expressing increasing concern and finding it hard to defend the president who has not offered a consistent line of defense this entire time. >> carol lee, i know from my own career in republican politics that when you got nada, when you've got nothing, when you've got zilch, no facts and no

substance, you attack the messengers. i haven't heard any substantive pushback on a single claim from this whistle-blower complaint. i haven't even heard from the white house other than the president characterizing it as a perfect call over and over again. i haven't heard a single fact pattern in dispute from this call with the ukrainians in which the "wall street journal" has reported that donald trump eight times asked the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens. we now have the envoy to ukraine kurt volker who testified nine and a half hours yesterday sharing text messages. we have mike schmidt's reporting last night in the "new york times" that he and the ambassador to the e.u. drafted an elaborate statement that the president of ukraine could put out to help cajole donald trump to actually ease the military aid to a u.s. ally to protect themselves from russia. i mean, am i missing -- is there a single fact in dispute from republicans or simply process?

>> well, no. and you're also not hearing anything consistent coming out of the white house either. arguably the only consistent thing that they have had to say is that to corroborate a lot of the things that are out there from either the whistle-blower reporter or great reporting like mike's reporting and others when isthat the president says his phone call was fine, there is nothing to see here. everything he did was above board. so -- and then they're tearing down the process just as you said. and our reporting shows that there is just no strategy right now in the white house, not politically. there's sort of an emerging legal strategy where you see the white house is saying that they're not going to turn anything over unless the house takes a vote on an impeachment inquiry. and that's designed to try to speed up the process, basically say we're not giving you anything, you will move ahead as early as december this could be wrapped up. and then they have almost a year

to fight in the political arena. but when you turn to the political arena, they are not really putting out any sort of consistent message there. and that's been frustrating to republicans on the hill to people outside the white house who want to support the president. and so what our reporting shows is that there's an effort led by jared kushner and mick mulvaney to try to sort of carve out a messaging strategy that basically has a carveout for the president because he can't be relied upon to put out a consistent message. he's all over the place. you saw that with his comments yesterday on china. and then you saw him again today saying he was upholding his own constitutional duties to push for these sorts of investigation and he really cares about corruption, not politics. and so not banking that they can rely on him in any way to put forward a coherent message and are trying to sort of work around that. >> i mean, the lack of a coherent message would seem like

problem number 17 on their list. these text messages, which, you know, people aren't going to know who bill taylor is. he happens to be one of our country's top diplomats on the ground in ukraine. people aren't going to know who gordon sondland is probably. but he was in receipt of some of those messages. but these exchanges are almost universal in their intent. i want to read some of these to you, carol lee, and ask you what possible thing could be crafted to explain this away. bill taylor, the top american diplomat on the ground in ukraine writes are we now saying that far security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? that has now been repeated by the whistle-blower. it's been repeated by the "wall street journal" reporting that the president asked for those investigations eight times. it's been repeated by everyone who has so far emerged as a witness in this early stage of the investigation. >> yeah. and, you know, frankly, they

don't have a good answer for that. and i think if you look at senators' comments to the "wall street journal," there is a beginning of sort of cracks here. in part, because what's coming out. this is just what we know as of now. there is plenty more that could come out. and what's already out there is quite damaging. one of the other things, nicole, that i find striking about these text messages and other things that we have learned so far is that all of these people seemed aware in some respect of what the president was trying to do. and, yet, nobody came forward and said anything about this. it took this whistle-blower report one individual who had second-hand as they have called it knowledge, meaning he had got it from other people who were very close to the situation, and filed a whistle-blower report. and so you have to also wonder, you know, how wide does this go? how many people were involved and knew about this and didn't say anything? >> mike schmidt, are you back

with us? >> i am. >> you have done some reporting on what happened and what became public, a story that published about three hours before these text messages were released by the three house committees. and it certainly paints a scene of a very elaborate effort that was underway by diplomats whose motives may still be in question. but their actions are becoming very clear. and take us through what you learned, ambassador volker was endeavoring to do with the president of ukraine. >> well, what they were trying to do with this statement was essentially get around the president and giuliani and satisfy them. they knew that if they wanted to sort of level-set u.s. relations with ukraine and help the ukrainians and push back on the russians, they needed to pacify trump and giuliani. and the only way to do that was to get the ukrainians to make this commitment, to essentially publicly lock themselves in to

doing these investigations that they knew trump and giuliani wanted. and that's why they went about it, and they got themselves certainly caught up in all this. they are now being forced to explain it. but they're essentially trying to work around the president to do traditional american diplomacy, something that trump probably didn't want to be done or didn't care to be done. but they thought was important and were trying to accomplish. >> let me read a little bit from your story last night. their work on the statement is new evidence of how mr. trump's fixation with conspiracy theories linked to ukraine began driving senior diplomats to bend american foreign policy to the president's political agenda in the weeks after july 25th call between the two leaders. is it your understanding that these men believed that releasing that military aid was tied to that statement that you reported on, were they committed to the investigations? >> we didn't report on it. we don't have evidence that the aid was tied directly to the statement.

there's been things that have come out about how the statement may have been tied to an oval office meeting. but what these diplomats were trying to do or what they believed was that giuliani was poisoning trump's mind about ukraine and they needed to try and sort of pacify giuliani to try and make him think that ukraine was dealing with the corruption so he would stop whispering in trump's ear, and trump would stop throwing up all these different road blocks including the most basic thing of embracing zelensky and having an oval office with him. so they're trying to work within the contours of they were in to make the traditional u.s./ukraine relationship work. and obviously we see what happened with that. the interesting thing about the statement though is that it's the ukrainians who ultimately said, you know, we don't think this is a great idea. we don't want to get any more involved in u.s. politics. that's one of the reasons why we never saw this statement come out. >> you know, paul butler, that's an amazing sort of commentary.

i mean, how bad are u.s. politics? they're so bad that it took the ukrainians who have a reputation around the world of corruption to be a guardrail on donald trump's rampant corruption on what mike and his colleagues describe as a poisoned mind on the part of the american president. it really -- you couldn't have made it up if you wanted to. >> it's unbelievable. so trump's corruption is a bridge too far even for the ukrainians. and again, we know the president's moves. he's faced so many credible allegations of corruption over the last three years of his presidency. we know how he responds. first he says i didn't do it. and then he says, well, maybe i did it, but it's not a crime, it's not illegal. so here he said first there is no quid pro quo. and there is substantial evidence these text messages are only the most recent. so part of it is what they say when the ambassador literally

says i can't believe that we are conditioning our military aid to the ukraine on helping the president's political campaign. then there is a cover-up also in text. five hours later the responding text, oh, the president never said that, and by the way, let's not do anything else by text. let's take it off of a written record on to the phone. and the other point though, nicole, is there's not a requirement that there be a quid pro quo in order for there to be a crime. so one example is solicitation of a foreign national to donate, to help your campaign. all you have to do is ask. you don't have to say i'm going to do this in advance. the law is that foreign nationals are not allowed to participate in our elections including with campaigns. and more importantly, for impeachment, no quid pro quo is required. this kind of corruption, this selling the interest of the

united states based on the president's own political campaigns, that's a classic high crime and misdemeanor, that's exactly the kind of abuse of office that the framers had in mind when they gave the house the power to impeach and the senate the power to remove. so, once again, the only question is are there going to be 20 republicans? that's the number that's required to remove the president from office once he is impeached. will there be 20 republicans who are concerned enough about national security to do the right thing for this country? >> jake sherman, i see you shaking your head. i'm guessing your answer -- but then could you also address whether or not bill taylor, this u.s. diplomat who i think went on to write in more texts that were released that he would quit if it turned out that the military aid, taylor, the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it, and i

quit. this would seem like an important witness for the democrats to have before their committees investigating this. >> you'd have to assume that, yes, if they haven't been in touch with him, and i have no reporting to suggest that they will. i understand you need 20. could we name four that are going to vote against the president at this point? it's news when one comes out. mitt romney came out today and spoke out against the president, and it was big news. i don't see at this point -- we don't know what's going to come out next. i don't see any senate republicans more than -- and i'm not even sure what romney's going to do. so i don't see that at this point. i mean, breaking in the last hour or so is the democratic committee sent a document request to mike pence the vice president. so that's quite significant that they are burrowing in even further to the administration and seeking more documents. now the president has said it's up to the lawyers, they are going to decide whether we're going to fork over documents and participate in these

investigations. but there's a lot of peril. the white house is really operating in a dangerous zone here because democrats have said if they don't hand over documents, that's evidence enough for an article of impeachment which was obviously an article of impeachment against nixon which was obstructing the lawful work of congress. so the white house is really operating in a tight space here. they have not signaled much room for maneuver. >> jake sherman, mike schmidt, carol lee, and paul butler, thank you all for starting us off and spending some time with us. when we come back, rachel maddow is in the house. and as far as teases go i should probably stop right there. but i'll add that i'm thrilled to have a chance to talk to her about this extraordinary turn of events, the latest developments, maybe even get her to do a dramatic reading of those text messages that came out late last night. we also get to talk to her about her brand-new book "blowout" in which she tackles everything today, russia, corruption, oh, yes, and of course rachel had the foresight to write about ukraine. rachel maddow joins us next and

what we're learning from today's questioning of a key witness in the impeachment inquiry. the watchdog who first fielded that whistle-blower complaint on capitol hill. we will talk with a member of the house intel committee who took part in today's closed-door interview. all that coming up. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro.

"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. there are things we would change about work. and there are things we wouldn't. ♪

when work is worth it. work is worth it. work can be closer to home... pay more... make us proud. careerbuilder. work can work. find your work at careerbuilder.com to the wait did frowe just win-ners. prouders everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime

so you only pay for what you need. it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy an eligible phone. call, click, or visit a store today. congressional subpoenas, request for foreign interference, incriminating new information, or as we call it around here, friday, covering the trump white house. joining us here my colleague and friend the host of "the rachel

maddow show." author and of best-seller "blowout." it was terrifying and thrilling to fill in for you last night. >> it was great. >> stop. you're making me sweat in my mind. but i mostly was dying because i wanted to here what you said about the news yesterday. so i'm going to get to today, but i've got to start with yesterday. volker nine and a half hours, one witness, nine days in and these feel like nixonian records. >> with each new story we get new proper nouns, new people we have to learn their position and whether or not they've been fired or resigned from, new questions about whether they're complying with subpoenas. it's just getting bigger and bigger and bigger. and for me the way that i'm able to keep track of it is in terms of articles of impeachment, right? like, they're going to impeach the president for asking a foreign power to intervene in the election. we've got an admission from the white house that he did it when they gave out -- we've got the

admission from the president that he did it on the south lawn. so that's the article of impeachment. all of the stuff about the text messages and the emails and the documents, both in the stuff that the inspector general from the state department handed over, all of this stuff as interesting as it all is, all it shows is that it wasn't just some whim of the president. he put these orders into effect. he made the administration try to carry this out. okay. so that goes toward that initial article of impeachment. and then all this stuff about how the whistle-blower complaint was handled, having the inspector general for the intelligence community in there today, that's all the separate article of impeachment which will be about obstruction, whether or not they tried to cover this up. and then we got a new probably a new article today or at least something toward it with them turning the impeachment inquiry toward vice president pence as well. so i feel like i'm just trying to keep categories of information in line without trying to get so caught up in any one new detail. >> i think the difference, too,

i mean, we both spent 23 months covering the mueller investigation, which was so opaque. and i think we both thrilled in all of the investigative journalism. this is like the web tv version. this is like a puppy cam impeachment. you point a camera on the president. he's basically susan glasser wrote last night self-impeaching. so the whistle-blower came out. before they finished figuring out how to smear, trump had confessed. what do you make of the speed to which they are confessing and moving their own goal post? >> that's sort of an interesting public relations approach to this. initially, if you sort of make an analogy of this. let's say the president mowed someone down at a crosswalk, first it was, no, i didn't, and then it was, yeah, i did, and then it was yeah, of course i did. >> because i'm against people in the crosswalk. >> exactly.

and that person in the crosswalk is a bad person. and also i don't believe in crosswalks. republicans are like we've always been against crosswalks. i mean, this is a tactic. i mean, one of the things that russian writers say about their own experience under putin is that this is one of the things that he does is that he gets accused of something, and if denying it doesn't work, he then proclaims it to be a virtue rather than a crime. and that is the moment that we're in. and republicans just have to decide if they're going to help. >> well, i mean, look, you and i became friends when we believed in a totally different set of policies. that was the substance of political television and political debate. the sides seemed to have melted into something that looks like disinformation and truth-seeking. i'm not even sure the truth has a seat at the table. i think the democrats are seeking it. and then i think the republicans feel like they are part of the disinformation campaign. there's a story in the "wall street journal" that came out before we came on the air that

republican senator ron johnson had also heard of a quid pro quo. that is what the diplomats obviously believed they were trying to manage around. and the evidence that's emerging certainly supports a quid pro quo. but i wonder if you think the republican defense will go to all foreign policy as a quid pro quo. i mean, is that how quickly they're changing the sort of the -- >> it's a good way to set it up. i think most important for us the american people in terms of thinking about what's gone wrong here and whether or not something ought to be punished here and how severe the punishment ought to be for the perpetrators is that the quid pro quo doesn't really matter. it's an aggravating factor but that's not it. soliciting something from a foreign government to help you in your election campaign is an impeachable offense and is also a crime. if the president has done that which he has. we've seen him do it on tv. we've seen white house notes proving that he did it in private as well. if the president did that, that is what he will be impeached for. if there are other members of the administration who were employed for that purpose, they should also be impeached or

potentially prosecuted. and that's it. now if part of the way they were seeking that information was also trying to carrot and stick here by also trying to threaten that foreign entity that if they didn't do this, then they'd be sorry. well, that makes it that much worse. but it's literally just an aggravating factor. i will say with senator johnson, god bless him. the one thing the president had going for him in those text messages was ambassador sondland saying very on fishsly in a brand-new tone. >> he caught his lawyer. >> having smoking with counsel, i want to be clear that there is no crime in here. there's definitely been no crime. >> there is no violation of quid pro quo. >> if you have a problem please call my pompeo. that's the only thing the president had to hang onto. >> five hours later. >> and ron johnson comes out today and says that guy sondland. he told me there's a quid pro quo. [ laughter ] >> this is it. and so the source for ron

johnson believing that the diplomats believed there was a quid pro quo that the military aid for our ally was tied up on doing political favors for the president, came from the guy who disavows bill taylor, the career diplomat. >> the one guy who trump theoretically has on this side in these internal documents that we've now seen handed over from coal over. according to ron johnson, that guy confessed to him and told the president he is looking for a quid pro quo for the military aid. if that's the guy who the president's best hopes are for making this quid pro quo away, which, again, doesn't really matter, it's just the icing on the cake, i think the white house defense here, we should expect to be chaos and obfuscation. >> i want to ask you about all the other people because we focus on the president's conduct. the president is the one being impeached, it would appear. but this would appear to be a conspiracy in which the list of

witnesses who are going to end up on capitol hill is longer, it's faster. one of the impediments it seemed with mueller is that you couldn't get witnesses like don mcgahn up to capitol hill. donald trump never sat for a deposition. in this instance you've already got one diplomat who was there for ten hours released all this evidence. it would appear we have a road map from the whistle-blower and from volker's testimony yesterday for more witnesses. >> we also have the defense department general counsel coming out and saying that the defense department will cooperate and retain all records and make sure that we're completely complying with the demands of this impeachment inquiry to the extent that the military aid is part of what's implicating here. interestingly rick perry at least it being reported that he was resigning announced that the department of energy would also comply with this and would retain their records. rick perry's own trip to ukraine will be part of this in the middle of what's interrogated. it's all happening at once. i mean, there will be a lot of

documents to review. there will be a lot of people to hear from. but again that's going to be about who else gets in trouble besides the president, and that's going to be about additional articles of impeachment related to obstruction. remember, in watergate, was like 40 people who were indicted or sentenced to prison. and not all of those people were burglars and not all of those people worked in the oval office. but when it became white house and administration policy, not only to carry out that crime but then to cover it up, it ended up involving a lot of people and ending all of those careers and putting some of those people in federal prison. >> and i would imagine a lot of those people, mike pence, mike pompeo, volker, all have criminal defense attorneys. >> if they don't, they should. i mean, cabinet officials don't have the same immunity from prosecution that anybody else does. and it is one of the things we are going to be talking about on my show tonight is to whether or not vice presidents do. the impeachment is extended to vice president mike pence and that's a very important step in

terms of politically and to these guys. >> the people sort of putting out that he didn't know anything about the military aid and then sort of pence came out and like trump confessed to the same kind of conduct. >> and it does not help mike pence that the white house, not mike pence's aides but people who work for donald trump are dumping as much of this on mike pence as we can. >> of course, if we're going down, you're coming down with us. >> you're going down instead of us. katy bar the door in terms of what the white house war looks like. >> okay. we are going to turn to the book on the other side of the break. i'm going to ask rachel why vladimir putin does what he does. she explains it, next. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats,

chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪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. itso chantix can help you quitd slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives,

you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

it is the best-selling book on amazon right now, "blowout" by my friend rachel maddow. it's an in-depth look at the oil and gas industry, the dramatic

effects it's had on the geopolitical balance of power. this is way too high-minded here. it's juicy. you have to read it for yourself. so i had two thoughts reading this. one, when the bleep-hole country did she write this because i have a job and you have a job. >> yeah. you're raising a child. >> how did you do this for real? >> mornings. i mean, that's it. you know what it's like -- you come in and it's not like i have spare moments during the day prepping for your show. i worked on it mornings and weekends. this is why i have stenosis in my neck and seven herniated disks. >> and you know i'm on you for vitamin d. >> right now i'm living on vitamin aleve. >> it's a remarkable accomplishment and it is so you, like right from the first page. obviously it starts from the scene during the bush era.

so you know my stomach -- oh, god, what else did we do. but just take me through sort of the scope because i think everyone's going to read this if they haven't already. but just for people that haven't dug into it. >> the reason i ended up doing it, as you know, i'm very interested in what russia did in 2016. the piece of it that i could never figure out that felt to me important in terms of trying to understand it and understand what might happen next is why russia did it and why they did it that way. and when john mccain came back from ukraine in 2014 as putin was preparing to invade ukraine and take part of it, he very famously said that russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. and he would later say it's a gas station armed with nuclear weapons. then hearing biden and obama talk about russia acting from a position of weakness, hearing people like angela merkel talk about like the key to understanding putin is that he doesn't have any other thing to do, and so what he's going to do

is throw these wild pitches. i just sort of that stuck with me belatedly in terms of trying to figure this out. and what i came to realize is that his decision to make russia oil and gas petro state gave russia bad governance and made oil and gas the weapon that they chose to try to control there near abroad. i think looking beyond that it made me realize that the oil and gas industry has been enabling putin but it's also bad for governance everywhere they operate. >> and there's so much. and you take us all over the world of corruption. but i couldn't tell whether you concluded that putin was an evil genius or kind of the head of a loser country making the most of the hand he's been dealt. >> i think he screwed up his country. i think that russia, even with their oil and gas resources and taking that as the basis of their economy, could've been an absolutely fearsome international competitor right now, not just in terms of their malign influence in the world but in terms of their economy and in terms of their human

capital in. our living lifetimes the soviet union was a world-straddling super power with satellites, are co-equal in the world. now look at them. they're 150 million people, largest landmass on earth. they've got an economy smaller than italy's. why is that? well, in part because putin decided that he wanted the one industry in his country to be the one that he could most easily steal from, and the one that he could most easily weaponize against countries around the world, most particularly ukraine. and so it ends up being a malign thing both domestically and internationally. and it under the circumstances us as americans in a really powerful position, not because of our government but because the western oil majors are either headquartered here or do lots of business here. that puts us in a position to being able to reign them in and force them to be better corporate citizens which would have a really big impact in terms of obviously climate and the environment. but it would also have a really big geopolitical impact including on russia's rogue

state behavior. >> i think chapter 19 was trending this morning because that's your ukraine chapter. i do want to ask you about the oil and gas industry. >> well, 19, again, i didn't know that the week that it came out. >> we'd be colluding with ukraine on tv? [ laughter ] >> with a russia connection? wait a second. there are a lot of -- the thing that i think is the insight from chapter 19 which is the one thing that i would like people to -- if you're only going to read one thing and you want it to inform current events, just read that. if only because the way they are trying to muddy joe biden and kick him out of contention for 2020 is something that they have done exactly before involving all of the same bad guys. there was a politician, the greg craig trial, the one trial that derived from the mueller investigation where the personal actually got acquitted by the

jury was derived by this effort by paul manafort, to smear shenko who had tried to clean up the oil and gas business. what they did to lock him up for having taken on that corruption there is a complete precedent for what they're trying to do with joe biden involving the same industry, the same russian and organized crime connected billionaires, and the same paul manafort who this time is orchestrating it from prison. >> you can't make it up. you couldn't have pitched this as a novel. >> it has been done before in the recent past and we've got all the receipts. so knowing that it happened before, seeing how it worked, seeing how evil and backwards it is should help us understand what's happening now. >> do you land on a conclusion about america's role? i mean, i kind of have some theories. we play the useful idiot, certainly american energy and

gas executives play the useful idiot to all this corruption and all this malevolence from russia. but do you land on the conclusion -- because i feel like you have questions even at the end of this. >> where i sort of land is sort of as i said that the american public is in -- we are in the cat bird seat here. we could change the world. i think that this is the most malign and destructive industry on earth because of what they're doing on climate but also because of the way they prop up dictatorships and bad actors around the world including the ones that are most hostile and most dangerous to america. and those companies are headquartered here or do business here. regulations, even not that radical regulations would have a huge impact on what they do. that's the most important thing. but i also think there ought to be a moment of accountability for the exxon mobils of the world, for rex tillerson. i find it a fairliy tale that i still can't believe that trump put the ceo of exxon mobil in

charge of u.s. foreign policy right after he did a half trillion dollars deal with russia that was only stopped because of u.n. foreign policy toward russia. then he put that guy in charge of foreign policy. the fact that the gas and oil industry needs more of our attention and as they get reigned in because of the impact they are having on the climate, we should recognize that reigning them in is going to change the world too. it's not just going to change the environment. it's going to change the geopolitical world. >> i think you will change the conversation around those industries' impact because right now the only conversation around the industry is around climate. there is no conversation, there was no meeting on governance and on the detrimental effects that the industry has. i think this will change that conversation. >> and there is a global imperative and a new american imperative about standing up for democracy. that feels great. but let's get real about it. >> and part of getting real about it is recognizing what the powerful forces are that are at work that are making our democracies weak and undermining

them and making democracy seem like such a sham to so many people around the globe of part of that is industry and the worst of them is the fossil fuel industry. if we are going to stand up for democracy, part of it means we need to define and understand its enemies. and that's what i think this is by. >> it's so important. it's such a pleasure to have you. >> thanks, my friend. >> this is so fun. will you come back? >> yes, absolutely. thank you for doing my show last night. you can do it again soon. >> i have a garbage there in case i throw up. it's terrifying. thank you for trusting me with it for one night. after the break we go back to capitol hill. what we are learning today about the ongoing hearings in the impeachment inquiry. that's next. t. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry.

and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right.

a trove of text messages from a former trump administration official has exposed conduct related to ukraine that's so worrying, even some republicans are finally speaking out. that's after testimony from just one person, the very first

witness to testify in the impeachment inquiry into president trump. now on day two in this imperilled new chapter of his presidency, the inspector general who corroborated the whistle-blower complaint is behind closed doors with the house intel committee. he's been there about seven hours and counting. a member of that committee, eric swalwell, joins us now. congressman, what was the hope -- what was the intention in bringing the intelligence community's inspector general back now that the complaint is public and you can speak more freely with him about it? >> good afternoon, nicole. the inspector general a few weeks ago had come to congress and said there was an urgent and credible complaint about the president's phone call with ukraine. a complaint made by a whistle-blower. and he had concluded it was urgent and credible. today we went into the investigation that he launched to justify that conclusion. after hearing from him today, the arrows continue to point in only one direction.

and that is the direction of presidential extortion and his conclusion was justified by the investigation he did. >> congressman, i spoke to you last night at 9:00 a couple hours before your committee released the text messages, but i want to ask you about one in particular. text messages from american diplomat working on the ground in ukraine who wrote that it was crazy or it would be crazy to tie foreign aid to political campaigns. >> that was bill taylor. he was the number two in ukraine. and he identified and expressed a concern about the president extorting the ukrainians for two things. the president had a consistent ask as soon as president zelensky came into office to get a white house meeting and for the -- it looks like for security assistance to be lifted, the ukrainian hs to go back and exonerate the russians for their role in the 2016 election and also investigate the president's future opponent,

potential opponent vice president biden. >> congressman, the person that kind of responded in writing to clean up the paper trail from that diplomat bill taylor is the same person who turns out to be republican senator ron johnson's source. when he learned and confronted the president about whether or not there was a quid pro quo tying that military aid for our ally to do some of the president's political bidding. do you want to bring all of these diplomats before your committee and have those invitations gone out? >> that's certainly the intention of our chairman and he is seeking their testimony. and just to back up a little bit, there is consistent concern by mr. taylor about the giuliani/biden relationship. and also about tying security assistance to the political help the ukrainians could give to

president trump and leveraging our tax dollars to do that. so mr. taylor is consistent. only after the whistle-blower complaint is filed and the white house would have knowledge of the complaint do you see our ambassador to the european union deliver that cleanup message and also say, by the way, don't talk about this on text. call me. yes, we certainly want to hear from individuals like that. and i just have to say, i believe there are more bill taylors out there. patriotic americans who have seen wrong doing and who have done the right thing but now we need them to come forward and speak up. that's the only way out of this national nightmare. >> so we don't know who the whistle-blower is, but are you surprised that more people haven't done just that? bill taylor who sounds like someone who did the right thing, he wrote to the president's appointee. are we saying that security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? that's the right instinct. but he didn't file a whistle-blower complaint as far as we know. >> he didn't. and a number of the people that

the whistle-blower talked about in the complaint did not call the committee. people who are on these text message exchanges that ambassador volker turned over have not yet contacted the inspector general. that is concerning. i can only imagine how isolated and lonely and scared and helpless individuals may feel right now. it probably doesn't help when the president of the united states is suggesting that cooperating with the inspector general should lead to your execution. but we are able to protect you and i would encourage anyone with information to go forward with the proper whistle-blower channels. >> what are your questions for vice president mike pence who is of increasing interest to your committees? >> he was part of the scheme the whistle-blower described and seems to be corroborated by rudy giuliani's own statements and confessions by president trump. vice president pence met with the president of ukraine in the midst of all of this in warsaw, stepping in for president trump.

the security assistants at that point had not yet been delivered to ukraine. so was he in on this play ball scheme? >> congressman swalwell, it's a fast-moving story. we're grateful to have your help in understanding all of the twists and turns. >> of course. my pleasure. >> we're going to sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. going to sr last break we'll be right back.

before we go, a little peek behind the curtain when it comes to covering this president. donald trump. we showed you earlier a taste of donald trump's defensive q&a with white house reporters this morning at the white house. our very own kelly o'donnell found herself on the business end of that outrage.

here she is with the president and of course kelly o. handling it with her signature grace and pressing on. that does it for our hour. thanks for watching. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. ♪ welcome to friday "meet the press daily." i'm chuck todd in washington where the evidence now is piling up against the president and the white house's battle with the house's impeachment inquiry is also escalating. we have a lot of major developments to get to. we're going to dive right in. the evidence against the president right now is starting to look overwhelming. we have newly released text messages from state department officials suggesting a possible quid pro quo involving the president of ukraine including one career diplomat sounding the alar