good morning. it's 7:00 in the east, 4:00 a.m. out west, there's a lot to tell you about. from the report about a new potential whistle-blower to a subpoena for the white house, to what trump told a republican senator about ukraine aid. and the president firing back at democrats. >> when adam schiff made it up, you talk about pinocchio, that should get ten pinocchios. >> adam schiff. we don't call him shifty schiff for nothing. >> adam schiff made up my words. adam schiff representative, congressman, made up what i said. >> the impeachment inquiry turning to vice president mike pence. a new take on which key player is the most vulnerable. plus the andrew yang surge. why his name is coming up regarding the november debate. and new this morning, there

is new reporting of what could become a major piece of evidence in the impeachment inquiry. "the new york times" reporting that a second intelligence official is considering whether to file a whistle-blower complaint about the president seeking foreign help from ukraine against his political opponent, joe biden. the "times" reports the second official has more direct information about the events detailed in the first whistle-blower complaint. and that the second official is among those interviewed by the intelligence community inspector general to corroborate the allegations of the original whistle-blower. the new reporting highlights the lengths the president and his inner circle have gone to to pressure ukraine to investigate the bidens. but remember, the president himself has already admitted that. >> if we feel there's corruption we have a right to go to a foreign country. president zelensky, if it were me, i would recommend that they start an investigation into the bidens. if they were honest about it,

they would start a major investigation into the bidens. likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens. we had a great conversation, largely the fact that we don't want our people like vice president biden and his son, creating the corruption already in the ukraine. >> there's been a fire hose of new information within the last 24 hours. house democrats have subpoenaed the white house and requested documents from the vice president. secretary of state mike pompeo has failed to meet a subpoena deadline for documents. but house democrats say the state department has reached out and nbc news is reporting that the c.i.a.'s top lawyer made what she considered to be a criminal referral to the justice department about the allegations made by the whistle-blower against the president. democrats are gathering evidence and testimony, yesterday the intelligence inspector general testified there behind closed

doors. next friday it's the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine's turn to testify. so we learned that tuesday the u.s. ambassador to the european union is also set to testify. ambassador gordon sondland was one of three u.s. diplomats whose text messages revealed how they were to persuade ukraine to publicly commit to investigate the president's political opponent. joe biden responding. keep in mind there's no evidence of wrongdoing here by the former vice president or his son, hunter. >> all this talk by the president about corruption, comes from the most corrupt president we've had in modern history. he's the definition of corruption, he's indicted himself by his own statements this is not about me, it's not about my son. there's not a shred of evidence that's anything wrong. this guy like all bullies is a coward, he does not want to run against me. >> joining me is elena tureen,

white house reporter for axios and kevin surly, washington correspondent for bloomberg news. "the new york times" story, how significant is having a second whistle-blower here who reportedly has more direct knowledge coming forward? >> it's incredibly significant. one of the biggest lines of defense from the white house with regard to i guess we'll call it the first whistle-blower, is that everything they base their complaint off of was secondhand information. this is what lawmakers, republican lawmakers and allies of the president have been repeatedly making this point over the past several weeks, past two weeks, it feels like it's been longer. and the president and the white house themselves are saying this whistle-blower is not entirely legitimate. because it's all secondhand information. it's a word we've heard thrown around a lot. another whistle-blower according to "the new york times" report had apparently has more

firsthand knowledge of what happened on this call is willing to come forward and testify and it was someone who according to the report, was interviewed by the inspector general and found to be corroborated. then it's incredibly significant. it really could change this line of defense from the white house as well. >> have we had reaction about a potential second whistle-blower from the white house? >> not precisely in terms of based on my reporting, hearing what they're saying around him. here's what i can say, this makes it even more likely that house democrats are going to continue on the path toward impeachment. we're hearing that articles of impeachment could come before thanksgiving with the impeachment proceedings on the house floor by the end of the year. and look, now that there's two whistle-blowers reportedly, it's only going to embolden those democrats, even those democrats on the fence, to get on board with what speaker pelosi, as well as house intelligence

committee chairman adam schiff have been calling for. it's still a little too early to tell whether or not it's going to place more pressure on republicans. because i'll be candid here. i'll be interested for what alana has to say, i've spoke within several republicans who are still in lock-step with this white house. that makes conviction in the senate very unlikely and it also makes it unlikely that there would be republicans in the house joining with democrats on impeachment. >> alana, what do you think? >> from people i've spoken with on the hill, republicans that kevin is referring to as well, people in the white house, their strategy of the moment is really to just continue with stonewall democrats in the house committees' requests for subpoenas. for interviews or for documents. one argument that the white house is making, axios reported this last week, that the president was planning on publicly laying all this out in a letter, is that nil house

speaker nancy pelosi holds a formal vote on an impeachment inquiry, they're not going to treat it like one. what officials tell me that means is that it gives more justification at least from the white house's point of view for them to continue to block any of these requests. the requests to we've seen secretary of state mike pompeo subpoenaed, we've seen rudy giuliani subpoenaed. mike pence is being requested to hand over documents so is his chief of staff, mick mulvaney. these house committees are far-reaching into the top levels of the white house for information. and the white house's response as of now is we're not going to cooperate if we don't have to. >> i want to get your take on the text messages we read towards the end of the week between the u.s. diplomats released by congress. including this one from a top u.s. diplomat in ukraine. who says are we now saying the security assistance in the white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? the u.s. ambassador responded simply, call me. so what do you think the white

house's defense could be to this? >> i asked this to a senior source the other day. this is prior, i want to be clear, this was prior to the second whistle-blower development. what they said is that the white house going to try to say they're looking into corruption all around the world. whether it relates to the bidens or not. so whether or not that defense going to be something that holds up with the american public, we're going to have to wait and see. but the text messages seemingly would corroborate with that whistle-blower complaint. now the original whistle-blower complaint, which was essentially look, look into the bidens. and you'll get the military aid, that said the president has been adamant that there was no quid pro quo. you heard that fiery exchange with "reuters" jeff mason and the president. and the president was asked repeatedly by jeff, you know why was he even bringing up hunter bide ton begin with.

and the president did not take the opportunity to answer that question directly. i think that question, that moment is going to be something that the president will be continue to be asked about, as will other folks within the administration. that question i think is at the heart of this. >> the president as you mentioned is trying to defend himself this week. and we put together a little summary of what that looked like. listen to this. >> the call was perfect, a perfect conversation. i heard rick scott today say that was a perfect conversation. it was perfect. shifty schiff, who should resign. we don't call him shifty schiff for nothing, he's a shifty, dishonest guy, he's a low life. there's an expression, he couldn't carry his blank strap. a moat, not a word i use, but they used it. a moat. this is a hoax. the greatest hoax. it's a whole hoax. it's corrupt and it's fake. now look at nancy pelosi. she hands out subpoenas like they're cookies.

you want a subpoena? here you go. take them like they're cookies. >> the question, sir, was what did you want president zelensky to do about vice president biden and his son, hunter. >> are you talking to me? did you hear me? did you hear me? ask him a question. >> i will, but -- >> i've given you a long answer, ask this gentleman a question. don't be rude. it's a whole hoax. and you know who is playing into the hoax? people like you. and the fake news media. you should be ashamed of yourself. i think i've answered most of your questions. >> so kevin, that is what we see in front of the cameras. and it seems to be a pretty scattered strategy. is there a strategy coming out of the white house for the president here? >> well there's a debate. i mean there's a debate between inside trump world with the one-half of the debate is take this incredibly seriously, scorched earth mentality, go after everyone. push through and keep fighting this because the impeachment threat is real. then the other side of the debate is, you know, well let's

wait and see. because if they think if they take it incredibly seriously, that it will put, it will give creedan ancedence to the invest and there's a line of thinking in some conservative thought circles that if speaker pelosi is going to be issuing subpoenas to everyone that it would essentially hurt her case, so there's a massive debate. i will say this -- in both of those camps, there are people who say that they are raising record-breaking fundraising off of this. i think you know to elena's point until there are articles of impeachment on the floor of the house of representatives, republicans are in a bind, because they don't really know where this is going. >> alana when you see what the president has put forward over the past week as a defense, how would you sum up what that reflects? >> it's classic president trump and it's classic the trump administration. we've seen the exact same

branding, the president he is in a way a masterful brander. he knows how to reframe the conversation the way he wants to that's why we're seeing nicknames. he employed them in the 2016 campaign, he's employing them now. shifty schiff, using the line no-value democrats or something along those lines. they're continuing to try to discredit the intelligence community. we saw this during the mueller investigation repeatedly with the president. they're trying to discredit the whistle-blower, questioning whether everything was hearsay or how they got their information. we're going to continue to see this in the weeks ahead. >> alana treene, kevin cirilli, thank you.

[ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

♪ ♪ create up to 12 combinations with applebee's new pasta and grill combos starting at $9.99. and get more bites for your buck with our late night half-priced apps. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

new revelations from a new nbc news report that says a top c.i.a. lawyer made a criminal referral in a phone call to the doj over the whistle-blower's allegations. but the department declined to examine the concern because they didn't consider the phone conversation a formal criminal referral because it was not in written form. joining me now is matthew miller, the former chief spokesperson for the department of justice and msnbc justice and security analyst. good morning, matt. >> good morning. >> attorney general william barr did not act on complaints from the c.i.a. and the director of

national intelligence because it wasn't in written form. what's your interpretation of that? >> two things about that. first i think it is unusual that it wasn't sent in written form. it looks to me i suspect there was a little bit of bureaucratic battle going back and forth between the c.i.a. and the justice department where both of them wanted the other one to take responsibility and neither one wanted to have their fingerprints on being the person that killed a criminal investigation. that said, the justice department doesn't need to have a written referral to start the investigation. and they don't need to do what as they said in the story, which is you know, they said they only looked at that as an election matter. they only asked the question whether the president's actions constituted a violation of election law. they don't have to do that. that's not usually what they do in these circumstances, usually they would get the information and look at all the available federal statutes and make a decision on that. they just decided not to open an investigation at all. >> does this need to become a criminal investigation? >> i don't think it does. i think it would be unhelpful in this situation.

i think one of the things that we saw through after the end of the mueller investigation is that the criminal justice system is ill-suited to deal with presidential misconduct. the justice department believes it cannot indict a sitting president. think it's unlikely with bill barr as the attorney general, even if there were criminal investigation, we would ever see evidence turned over to congress. we now know and it's probably been clear for some time the best way to police presidential misconduct is with an impeachment process. congress has been able to get evidence for this inquiry. think that's the best route to go for an investigation that could actually hold the president accountable. >> i want to take a quick look at the president, all the president's men connected to the case who have been active in some of the evidence publicly as well. attorney general barr, rudy giuliani, secretary of state mike pompeo. who do you think is the most vulnerable here? >> all of the above? they all have kind of similar

problems but they all have one in the same problems, they were all at least aware of what was going on and at worst, were involved in it. rudy giuliani was very much involved. if there ever were a criminal investigation say after the president left office i think he would have the most liability. just with respect to kind of liability in terms of being aware and caught up in a scandal, both the vice president and mike pompeo seem to have had a great deal of awareness about this. the vice president, one of the vice president's advisers was on the phone call that the president had with president zelensky of ukraine. they gave this weird explanation to the "washington post" where he either didn't read the briefing about it or if he read the briefing, he didn't understand it. it's odd that they couldn't pick one of those defenses. and then of course mike pompeo, it was his state department that was helping carry out the scheme for months, we saw in the text messages released, one of the ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland said if you don't like what's going on, take it up with the secretary. think it's hard to believe that pompeo wasn't fully aware of

what was going on. and i think the congress will have a lot of questions about his actions and whether he helped further this team in the coming weeks. >> the vice president is also getting roped into this more so than i imagine woe like. the chairman of three house committees, intel, foreign affairs and oversight are requesting key documents from pence, his response, his office is response r responding claiming the request was not serious. quoting the do-nothing democrats in their words. what happen s if he doesn't wor with them? >> i think they're not going to turn over documents, i think they'll follow the playbook is that the white house is going to stonewall and make democrats take them to court to get the documents. they know that's a months-long process, it could take into next year and drag out past the election. the thing that's different about this investigation compared to the other investigations democrats have conducted is democrats are getting evidence without the white house's

cooperation. there are woeblers coming forward and giving testimony. people coming and turning over their text messages so the vice president may refuse to turn over documents, it seems the state department are going to do. but that doesn't mean the house is going to stop their investigation. it doesn't mean they're going to wait. it seems they're going to push forward with impeachment. on top of that they're going to consider the failure to cooperate with that investigation as potentially another impeachment article. >> something that is developing right now, mike pompeo is holding a press conference in greece. i want to know that we're monitoring that for news. he did admit that he was on the trump call with the ukrainian president. what are the legal implications to that admission? >> i think the problem, it's not a legal problem in terms of criminal liability i don't think. but it means there was a aware of whats president was trying to do. when you add his awareness of the president's direct push, and we did see in that phone call, the president directly pushing a foreign adversary to intervene

in the election and doing it in the context where the president of the ukraine was asking us for something, was asking for military assistance. it raises a question of how much else mike pompeo knew. he knew about that, did he know about what the people that work in his state department were doing? we saw evidence that kurt volker who worked for mike pompeo took a direct quid pro quo to the ukrainian government. said if you want a meeting with president trump you have to announce these investigations. was pompeo aware of that? it's hard to imagine he wasn't at least in some generality. probably much more. >> matt our correspondent on the ground in kiev, matt bradley reported that there is an, a review that's going to happen on several cases here. does it appear that the quid pro quo then worked, do you think? >> i think it absolutely worked. had it not been for the whistle-blower coming forward and blowing the wis onl what's happening in the white house, the review would have been announced, announced without all the fanfare. and you would have seen a lot of

media stories that the vice president's son is now under investigation and the republicans would have taken it and ran and said the vice president is under investigation. you can't trust joe biden, look at his actions while he was vice president or under investigation. they would have gotten away with it, had this whistle-blower not come forward. >> matt miller, thank you so much. there's a new turn in the push to get the whistle-blower to testify. we'll tell you about it, next. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved

90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything 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. ♪ ok i'll admit. i didn't keep my place as clean as i would like 'cuz i'm way too busy. who's got the time to chase around down dirt, dust and hair? so now, i use heavy duty swiffer sweeper and dusters. for hard-to-reach places, duster makes it easy to clean. it captures dust in one swipe. ha! gotcha! and sweeper heavy duty cloths lock away

twice as much dirt and dust. it gets stuff deep in the grooves other tools can miss. y'know what? my place... is a lot cleaner now. stop cleaning. start swiffering. you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia - a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that can disrupt your life for weeks. in severe cases, pneumococcal pneumonia can put you in the hospital. it can hit quickly, without warning, making you miss out on what matters most. just one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia. it's not a yearly shot. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. don't get prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting, fever,

chills, and rash. ask about prevention. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®.

breaking news, secretary of state mike pompeo is on a trip in greece and moments ago he responded to a question about ukraine. listen to this. >> real simple with respect to ukraine, state department, you can see this from what everybody has seen ambassador volker said, on thursday, state department was very focused. at the direction of the president. we were very focused on creating space. that we could ultimately deliver a good relationship with this new guidance. that was my guidance all along, the guidance i took on board as we were thinking about all the various components of that

relationship. you saw ambassador volker working to try to create that opportunity. we know there's been corruption in ukraine. the united states government has been engaged in trying to push back against corruption in ukraine for quite some time and this administration has been full fledged committed to that as well. >> there you have it. that is secretary of state mike pompeo delivering new comments on ukraine. let's discuss with ambassador nancy soderberg, former u.s. ambassador to the united nations and deputy national security adviser under the clinton administration, what's your response? >> well good morning, i think secretary pompeo is not going to be able to hold up that narrative as this chaos around him swirls with new text messages and secretary perry resigning. it's just -- an unbelievable cascade of events. and i think what's going to happen here is it will be clear that the president and secretary

pompeo, giuliani, the other lawyers freelancing in europe on behalf of the president, did actually put a quid pro quo on the table. and that is a fact that will emerge through testimonies, through these text messages that have come out. and i think that the question for secretary pompeo is -- what was his role in holding up the tied ukraine? it was not about creating space and a good relationship with ukrainians. it was to try to make sure that the government would do the president's bidding. and that is going to come out and i think people around the president need to stop with these false narratives. >> do you think in the mind of secretary pompeo that creating a good relationship equates doing the president's bidding? >> there's always a tension when you are a cabinet member of any administration, you reason the

president has political appoi appointees is to make sure that his agenda gets sent down through the bowels of the bureaucracy. it's hard to be secretary of state. it's hard to get the building to do what you want and to shift priorities so that's not unusual. and i think what is unusual and why you're seeing the whistle-blowers and the leaked text messages and you're going to see more and more resignations, political appointees doing the president's bidding in europe and ambassador to the eu for some reason became the ambassador to ukraine and the president's envoy, we don't know that whole story yet, either. until officials come clean and this is what happened, which is very clearly the president said we're going to hold up aid to the ukrainians, until they investigate joe biden. and that's clearly what happened here. and until they stop trying to hide that fact, and become clear on what happened, you're going to have this cascade of one

scandal after another and people's careers are going to be ruined. including probably the secretary of state's. >> what do you expect from the testimony coming from the ambassador, coming up on tuesday? there's been a lot of focus on what could happen there. what do you want to see? >> well we don't know exactly what, what was said. but if you look at the text messages, that are now out in the public domain for everyone to read, he and others were very concerned, the ambassador to ukraine, taylor, back and forth saying i'm very uncomfortable with holding up military aid to ukraine. as this process goes forward. and i think all of those testimonies are going to come out. i think what, what the officials in this administration, as any administration have to realize, is that they work for a government that is held accountable by our courts and our congress. and the truth always comes out. and so it's better to rip the band-aid off early. say what happened and deal with the consequences of that.

which may or may not cause the president to be impeached. we'll certainly find that out as the process emerges. i don't know how that's going to end. but i do know any time you have these investigations, everyone in that circle who tries to cover up exactly what happened -- it never ends well for them. i think it's important to get out what happened with this aid. now you remember president trump rightly increased aid to ukraine. they are in a hot war with russia. russian troops are in ukraine. it was the right decision to increase that aid. and who was in the chain that held that up? why was it held up? what was conveyed as far as the reason for why it was held up? all of that is going to become part of the public report and the public reckoning of this. to the extent that they try and avoid having that story come out. it will not end well for anyone that's trying to withhold that story and i think admit what happened, let the chips fall where they may.

and then this administration can get on with the government's business. >> a question for you as a former national security adviser. i know that you were probably tasked to listen to some of president clinton's calls with foreign leaders, i imagine. and there's been a lot of focus placed on the elipses and the notes of the president's call with his ukrainian counterpart. how unusual is that? and how do you interpret that? >> i've sat in on hundreds of phone calls in the oval office traveling in the sit room with the president. and what happens is there are always other people listening on the call. everybody is taking notes. when the president is having a conversation with the head of state, that sets the tone for the whole government and it filters through, you get a memorandum of conversation, a mem-com.

what is unusual is to put it into a code word system that very few people have access to it. now there's only two reasons that one would do that. one is to actually protect very classified information such as the identities of spies or covert programs. which raises the question of why would a president be talking about that with a foreign leader. unknown. or to try to hide what the conversation was about. which is it here? i think we'll find the answers to that as well. you also have to remember when the president of the united states is on the phone with a foreign leader, that is a big deal for this leader. and it's clear that the ukrainians in these messages coming out, were worried about being essentially used as a political pawn by the president. they were very uncomfortable with these requests. and those conversations will be also available to the ukrainian side. so the ukrainians have a

conversation record as well. so it is virtually impossible for a president of the united states not to have the content of these phone calls come out. and they're just making it worse by trying to obfuscate what exactly the conversation entailed. it will all come down to what happened to the military aid? we had almost $400 million in aid approved by the congress, somehow eld up for months and then slid released when this began to become public. what happened there? we will find that out, because professional members of the bureaucracy are charged with delivering that aid and all of a sudden it's held up. that's something that's unusual. and so that's one of the things that the conversation will go ahead and investigate. i will just say again, don't try and obfuscate what happened. it will become public. heads will roll if people were not telling the truth now. the more -- and it really has to come from the president himself

and saying all right. this is what happened. i believe i was doing the right thing. others may disagree. stop trying to pretend it isn't what it was. which was to link military aid to ukraine to a request from the president of the united states. >> we'll see if that happens. certainly a fair warning from a former member of a former administration. ambassador nancy soderberg, thank you so much. developing this morning, house democrats are working to get testimony from the whistle-blower as they press forward with their impeachment inquiry. the woebl's attorney tells nbc news, that the negotiations are still ongoing. the complaint which alleges that the president used the power of his office to solicit help on his re-election campaign. joining me now is national security attorney bradley moss, a partner at the washington, d.c. law office of mark zayde pc, which is one of the firms

representing the whistle-blower. good morning. >> we know you have a limited scope about what you can actually talk about here. do you expect that your law firm will be able to strike a deal for the whistle-blower to testify here? what i'll say here is i think it would be helpful if the whistle-blower is able to provide information as needed, to the congressional committees in a secure setting. in a way that protects the whistle-blower's identity and allows this person, whoever he or she is, to go back to work anden be anoun mouse from this entire process. the whistle-blower system is a designed to allow these individuals to raise their concerns confidently and anonymously and go back to work and allow the higher officials, allow the political players that be, to do their job to decide what if anything needs to be done here. whatever comes of this, whatever congress chooses to do in terms of possible impeachment, whatever the executive branch decides to do in terms of how they respond to these congressional inquiries, is not

the interest of the whistle-blower. he or she did their job, they should be able to provide whatever information is needed and go back to their life. >> there's a "new york times" report about a possible second whistle-blower. what is your advice to that person? >> that person has relevant information, they certainly should go through the process. they should get qualified counsel as far as i know, it's not us at the moment. they should get qualified counsel, make sure their rights are protected and go through the lawful, proper channels, just as the original whistle-blower did to make sure the sanctity of any classified information is protected. to make sure that if there's relevant material information, it is provided to the officials who are authorized to receive it. both in the executive branch and ultimately in the legislative branch to insure there are no unauthorized disclosures of properly classified information and the relevant political players can see what is needed as they decide to go forward and how to address this problem.

>> there might be trepidation, it could be surmised because of all the attacks of president trump attacking the first whistle-blower, and since the complaint emerged, this could be a difficult thing to do. take a listen to some of this rhetoric. >> i wonder, who is the person that gave the whistle-blower, who is the person that gave the whistle-blower the information? because that's close to a spy. you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart, right? with spies and treason, right? we used to handle them a little differently than we do now. >> respond to concerns that you are putting the whistle-blower's life in danger. >> well the whistle-blower is very inaccurate. the whistle-blower started this whole thing by writing a report on the conversation i had with the president of ukraine. and the conversation was perfect it couldn't have been nicer. >> bradley, is the whistle-blower fearing for his or her safety here? >> i can't speak one way or the

other to what this person may or may not be feeling. the comments by the president and a lot of the president's political and media allies have been disgraceful, beneath the prestige and integrity of the office that the president currently holds, this individual and just like other whistle-blowers who go through the process properly are lawful whistle-blowers using a mechanism created by law, by federal law, to bring concerns forward. this is not an edward snowden. this is not a chelsea manning, this person didn't dump a whole bunch of documents on the public record and say you do what you want with it the person went through the proper channels, protected the sanctity of the classified information to raise their concerns to the higher level officials. for the president and his allies to try to discredit this person, smear this person like this is disgusting. >> bradley moss, thank you so much for taking time to talk with us this morning. it's time to see what's happening at the top of the hour on "up." joining me is host david gura,

what have you got? >> we'll update the impeachment inquiry. from democratic leadership. king jeffreys, the chairman of the house democratic caucus will join us. we're going to talk about how the trove of text messages has changed the house inquiry. get his response to the new republican talking point as well. it's time for the house to put up or shot up. to go ahead and vote on impeachment or leave it behind. so much news from the gator-filled moats the president proposed. george takai is going to join us on "up" as well. >> david gura, thank you very much. bernie sanders is on the road to recovery. but how will his heart attack affect his campaign? you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on.

you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! but she wanted someone who loves with the cats.ng. so, we got griswalda. dinner's almost ready. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with our renters insurance. yeah, switching and saving was really easy! drink it all up. good! could have used a little salt. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. ♪ tum tum-tum tum tums

with tums smoothies. panera's new warm grain full of flavor, color,. full of- woo! full of good. so you can be too. try our new warm grain bowls today. panera. food as it should be. doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu.

we've got breaking news this morning. 2020 contender senator bernie sanders is out of the hospital this morning after suffering a heart attack. he was hospitalized tuesday after experiencing chest pains while campaigning in nevada. joining me with the latest is nbc news campaign embed gary grumbach who has been following the senator on the campaign trail. how did he look as he left the hospital? >> all signs point to senator sanders doing well. he walked out of the hospital wearing his classic blazer and button-down and he's doing well. after he walked out the campaign sent out a statement saying he was in the hospital for three days and instead of a blocked

artery he had a heart attack. the 78-year-old did have a heart attack. after he got out he and his wife, dr. jane sanders took a walk here in las vegas where they recorded this video message posted on twitter. >> i just got out of the hospital a few hours ago. and i'm feeling so much better. i just want to thank all of you for the love and warm wishes that you sent to me. see you soon on the campaign trail. >> what's next here for the senator? he spent the night here in las vegas and he's heading back to burlington, vermont today, expected to be down for a couple of days. and we heard from dr. jane sanders and from the campaign that he will be on the stage, the debate stage in westerville, ohio, on october 15. joe? >> so gary, i want to know why don't we hear about the heart attack until last night? why did it take several days to get this information? why did the campaign choose to release it late? >> the campaign told us

originally that he had a blocked artery and two stents put in. last night as he was released from the hospital, almost the same moment, the campaign emailed a statement saying here's a statement from the doctors who treated him that he did in fact have a heart attack. there were few days of speculation, media outlets put out articles -- did he have a heart attack or not? we now know for sure he had a heart attack. >> you cover the voters who support and come out for senator sanders here. what do you think voters will feel. how do they react to the fact that this was a heart attack. this resonates with a lot of people here. >> this was a big deal, heart attacks are fairly common. but it's a big deal. it points to the fact that all three of the top leading presidential candidates are over the age of 70. heart attacks happen. it's something that voters do take into consideration when considering what they think. i'm covering senator bernie sanders events, most of the people that attend these events are very pro bernie sanders so

age is not as big of a factor. but for voters looking at other candidates, they see somebody like mayor pete buttigieg, who is younger and less at risk for a heart attack and they look at that. >> we'll see how it reflects in the debate among voters. nbc's campaign embed gary grumbach, thank you so much. another 2020 candidate within striking distance of the november debate. who is on pace to deliver a surprise to the rest of the field. ers. i'm from cameroon, congo, and...the bantu people. i had ivory coast, and ghana...togo. i was grateful... i just felt more connected...to who i am. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com.

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

beauty editors have tried everything in search of a whiter smile. their choice? crest 3d whitestrips. our exclusive formulation whitens safely for a 100% noticeably whiter smile. guaranteed. trust america's #1 whitening brand, crest 3d whitestrips. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight.

in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration,

which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. >> now to the battle for campaign cash. a new reporting that bernie sanders is still leading the way hauling in $25 million. $700,000 more than senator elizabeth warren. senator pete buttigieg raised the third highest total. $4 million over the former vice president joe biden. the next debate lineup is all

set and crowded. >> we have another debate coming up. what you see is the long list. this is every democrat who is running or has run. you see those xs there. those are the candidates that dropped out. you still see the field here. the issue has been too many candidates to fit on one stage. it has changed the criteria for this upcoming debate. it will allow 12 candidates. everybody in the top row. tulsy gaber, amy klobuchar and styr will be there.

everybody from the last one plus the three. they have said they'll have 12 people up there for once for one crowded night. after this debate, the dnc says the next debate in november, they are raising the criteria to get in. what you see here is the average of all the national polls. what the dnc is saying. they are raising the polling threshold. you got to be hitting the polls or do 5% early. what that means is biden looks like he's good. warren, sanders, buttigieg,

harris, andrew yang. after that, a lot of question marks. beto, cory booker. a amy klobuchar. giant stage coming up in middle october. after that, it might get a lot smaller. >> thank you for that. coming up, actor and activist george takei talks about immigration. see his take on the president's new decision to deny visas to visitors who cannot pay for health care. that is coming up. feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result.

that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ could another come aroundot, the corner. or could it play out differently? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot. almost 98% of patients on eliquis didn't experience another. and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding

than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling numbness or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily. and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planed medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be your moment. ask your doctor about eliquis.

>> we are all out of time this hour. msnbc live will be back tomorrow morning at the same time. now it is time for "up with david gura." >> this is "up" i'm david gura. we now know what the top lawyer at the cia made a report. a second intelligence official waiting to see if he'll file his own informal complaint. fuelled by the