find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. my thanks to phil rucker, eugene robinson. most of all, to you for watching. another wild week. "mtp daily" with my friend chuck todd starts now. welcome to friday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington. it's been another wild day. democrats have just won a potentially major court victory in the impeachment fight. sort of. it will bring mueller back into the picture. late this afternoon, a key

federal judge has ordered the justice department to hand over the grand jury material from former special counsel robert mueller's investigation before the end of the month. and in this case, the judge explicitly rejected the trump administration's argument that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate without a full house vote authorizing it. that is what may be the most important part of this ruling. the administration is likely to appeal it. this is a big win right now for house democrats, especially if it establishes a precedent allowing house investigators access to more documents because the judicial branch recognizes what they're doing as an official impeachment inquiry. now, this news comes as "the new york times" reports and nbc news sources confirm that a probe by the president's attorney general bill barr into the origins of mueller's investigations has changed from an administrative review into a criminal investigation. now, we do not know when this criminal inquiry began and we do not know what actual crime is being investigated yet. but we do know that this is an

inquiry the president has publicly demanded based largely, it seems, on some of the same personal grievances and conspiracy theories that have also fueled his interactions with ukraine. and here's perhaps the biggest development right now. what we're now looking at perhaps by the president's design is a fog of political warfare involving him, his lawyer, his attorney general, the justice department, and congress. you have the president and giuliani who schemed to get ukraine to dig up dirt on their political rivals, some of which would get filtered to barr. you have an impeachment inquiry and to that scheme now barrelling its way through congress. you have the president now successfully getting barr to criminally investigate the justice department via the origins of the russia investigation. and you have the justice department scrutinizing giuliani's ties to ukraine after they arrested two of his associates who were involved in the ukraine matter. taken together, it is a circular firing squad of chaos. with ukraine as the connective tissue for all of it. folks, if you were an ambassador

ridi writing a cable back home, you'd look at this mess and warn your boss this country's government appears to be coming apart at the seams. let's bring in nbc news correspondent julia ainsley. julia, first i want to see what more have we learned about john durham, the u.s. attorney that was tasked with this administrative review of the origins of the russia investigation. it's now a criminal investigation. have we gotten any new insight as to what triggered it as criminal? what is it? what specific crime they're looking into? anything? >> so, chuck, we just know that in general, the bar is pretty low to go from what was an administrative review into a criminal investigation. remember, this is before you would even think of having charging materials or an indictment. but it means that there is a criminal statute in our laws that has allowed the, in this case, john durham, the u.s.

attorney in connecticut, to impanel a grand jury. we don't know if he has yet but he now has the ability to do that. in order to do that, you need to at least be investigating under a statute. now, something that william barr has said, the attorney general, in trying to justify the appointment of john durham in this investigation in the first place is that durham will have the ability to subpoena, unlike the inspector general, who is conducting his own investigation into the very same thing. so this seems like a step that william barr would want john durham to take. especially, as he tries to get to the bottom of it, one that you would actually expect him to take. there is a key piece of this that i think has gotten lost today and that's the timing. we don't actually know when this became a criminal investigation. it could have actually happened sometime this summer. so i don't want our viewers to think that just because what's going on in the ukraine and that fantastic graphic that you just laid out. i have to thank your team for that. >> we worked on it. they worked on it. we worked on it for hours today

to be honest. i think we have a rom bhombus, trapezoid, and a right-angle triangle in all of this. >> i think i'd like that for my office. but the point is that it doesn't just seem like a -- it could easily look like a distraction from this white house. that they're now upping this to a criminal investigation rather than an administrative review. but, in fact, that could have happened before the ukraine call even came to the attention of the justice department. so i do just want to point that out. but when you look at that, again, your beautiful graphic, it is paramount to remember that william barr does see this investigation as a top priority of his. i mean, he did traveling on behalf of john durham to get foreign countries to cooperate as part of that probe. >> now, before i move over to the congressional side of things, the court ruling today that rejected the trump administration's argument about the -- the status of this impeachment inquiry, that is significant beyond just the material they're getting from

mueller. but where does this court -- they're going to appeal. where does this appeal go? are they going to go in order? or try to fast track to supreme court? >> well, it seems the deadline to turn all of this over is october 30th. that's wednesday, i believe. we would have to see something very quick that could try to get an emergency injunction to keep them from turning this material over. but the fact is this really kind of took the knees out of the republican argument today that because this isn't a formal impeachment inquiry because there was no normal vote, that somehow house democrats aren't privy to this information. that is now lost. at least in this court. this is a fight that began before we even knew about the ukraine call when house democrats wanted to get more information from robert mueller's report. including, that grand jury material and try to connect some of these dots that are, frankly, still left unconnected even after a 430-page report. so at this point, it not only is a win on that but also the judge said that the olc opinion,

that's the office of legal counsel, the justice department, that said a sitting president can be indicted. remember talking about that a lot with you, chuck, last spring. >> yeah. >> the judge says that has never been upheld in court. so this is really taking a lot out of the republicans and the white house's legal arguments on both sides. >> all right. so we got the legal analysis there. let's go to the congressional and political side of things. leanne caldwell. they now have the mueller -- they may be getting, within a week, the mueller grand jury material. does that become a way to widen the probe itself? is this potentially a distraction from their laser-like focus on ukraine? does this slow things down? does it, you know, or -- or does this -- is this more about the ruling itself that will allow them to get other documents associated with ukraine? >> i think you're -- it's both, chuck. let's start with the fact that it's a big win for democrats

definitely because as julia just said, undercut the republicans' argument. they're saying that because there is no formal impeachment inquiry vote, then they don't have to comply with the democrats' document requests or they can try to block people from coming in to testify. so the judge said, no, there doesn't need to be a formal vote. and the impeachment inquiry is under way. okay. so does this complicate things for democrats? it actually could because we know the house speaker nancy pelosi and a lot of democrats have really been trying to narrow the focus of this investigation. especially, regarding -- keeping it very limited to ukraine. now, the fact that the mueller probe is back in the news, the fact that democrats might get something out of these grand jury documents that they've been wanting for so long, it's going to make it -- first of all, it's going to make a bigger argument within the democratic caucus. there's going to be those

divisions that really come out where the more progressives want more articles of impeachment. and where the more moderates and the leadership tend to want a very more narrow, focused impeachment article. so it could very well complicate things for democrats in the long run. but the democrats know that the law is on their side in this court. >> and then going back to the decision by the justice department to do a criminal investigation, what's been the democratic party's reaction today on capitol hill to that? >> it's parisan as you can imagine. republicans are thrilled. the fact that the justice department is making this a criminal investigation and democrats are saying this is just partisan politics. that there was a legitimate reason that the mueller investigation was opened. and so that's going to be something that's going to maintain down party lines and i don't think that's going to change anytime soon. >> all right.

leanne caldwell kicking off legal and political developments in the last few minutes. thank you both. my nbc news colleague ali vitali. matthew, founding editor of the washington free beacon. former senior advisor to hilary clinton and barack obama. all right, betsy. i am sort of of two minds here. does this development on one hand, there's certainly legal victory here for the house democrats. but it's the mueller probe. and -- and -- and to me, that's a mixed bag right now when they're trying to be laser-like focused on ukraine. >> i think by far the most important of this judge's ruling is a judge saying that the impeachment inquiry is legitimate without a house vote. the fact of them sort of cracking open the grand jury material might not actually be that consequential for the future of trump's presidency. in part because -- and this is a weird thing for me to say -- but capitol hill has actually not

been that leaky of the underlying mueller materials that they've been able to see. i mean -- >> by the way, we're the reporters. we're trying to get it. we like leaks and you're right. >> call me. we've been tracking this. >> you don't even get a butt dial about it. >> very disappointing. so that makes me believe this grand jury material, even though the house sees it, they may defy history and keep it to themselves instead of sharing it with the public. but of course, having a judge on their side saying that this impeachment inquiry is, in fact, one is really valuable. >> ali, you spent a lot of time covering the trump white house. as this week has gone on, are they happy that it's a fog machine in some ways? that in some ways, there's stuff everywhere. like if you're just sitting back and you're a houston astros fan and you're a political junkie, you're just sitting back going -- first of all, you don't want to think about washington. but you're going, all right, there's investigation here. i mean, put our graphic back up, right? that, to me, is what trump

wants. >> yeah, because it works, right? i mean, i look at this a lot from the outside the belt way perspective and a lot of the voters that are paying attention to this are sort of paying attention to this. they have other things that they'd like to hear about. and so i think the fog of all of this actually really does work to the trump campaign and white house advantage because there's just too many story lines for most people to follow and also live their lives. but i also will say that when you look at bill barr, it sort of takes me back. we always talk about audience of one. i think in this case, it's like audience of one and then there's bill barr. like, this is what trump has always wanted out of his attorney general. he didn't get it out of sessions. now, he's getting it out of bill barr. now, with this criminal investigation, he can go on the campaign trail and say, look, there's some legitimacy to the theories i've been pushing out there and he's got a base who is really willing to receive that. >> matthew, we were having this discussion today. if you were a foreign government right now, this would be a good time to sort of get something out of us because we are -- i

don't mean -- because we -- we look -- >> the president of turkey. >> yeah. well, there's that. but we look like we're at war with ourselves. and, you know, this is a time -- because we are. >> we are. we're a highly polarized country. we have these overlapping investigations. we have impeachment inquiry into trump. we have trump opening the investigation into his opponents and critics. >> and that person investigating is being investigated, too, in rudy, right? i mean, it's -- it's -- it's paralyzing for american democracy and the bad news is it's not going to stop anytime soon. >> no. and we may have a -- we're going to have -- we may have a government shutdown that accompanies this in the next three weeks. >> i have to actually reject this outlook, right? because what's actually happening just to be honest is not two warring investigation. >> we're not saying that. it's a fog machine that's happening right now. >> i appreciate it. it is a strategy of the trump administration to confuse the public, to add dishonesty and lies, and then there's an actual

investigation which is into the president. and i actually disagree. i think most people can understand that's why the numbers have been moving on the impeachment inquiry itself, which is it's an investigation into whether the president basically shook down a foreign country to go out to get dirt on his opponent. >> what would your advice be to democrats on the mueller material they get access to? would you tell them, look, you got the victory you need on justification of house inquiry? be careful of expanding the probe. or not? >> i think my advice would be to focus on ukraine because people understand the ukraine investigation. there are actually two committees here, judiciaries, investigating the mueller probe. that's receiving the mueller material. they should conduct those. they should get the information, conduct all of the oversight they need to. but the impeachment inquiry that is happening right now, which the judge affirmed that it is an impeachment inquiry, is actually about the ukraine instance --

incident. and i think schiff is doing an excellent job really focusing on the facts here. >> the other thing that happened today is the president launched an official attack on bill taylor. and he went after him hard and it's interesting. even -- even kind of chastising mike pompeo over it. take a listen. >> said that you held up military funds because you wanted ukraine to investigate the 2016 election. >> well, the problem is -- here's the problem. >> are you calling him a liar? >> here's the problem. here he's a never-trumper. his lawyer is a never-trumper. hey, everybody makes mistakes. mike pompeo. everybody makes mistakes. he's a never-trumper. his lawyer's the head of the never-trumpers. they're a dying breed but they're still there. and here's the other problem, you're with cnn and you're fake news. >> here's the important thing there. the president of the united states refuses to address the

central charge. he didn't even -- he -- he won't -- he won't answer that question, betsy. which tells you -- and he -- it's the same playbook. we've seen this playbook before. he did it to robert mueller. now, he's trying to do it to bill taylor. >> he's staying exactly in character. you have to give him credit for consistency at least. if the relationship wasn't complicated enough as is, the fact that he is now going after his own top diplomat. >> he's still the ambassador. >> listen. i can confirm that bill taylor is currently in kiev working as the top diplomat there. that's what he is doing right now. >> if he were a never-trumper would he be working in the trump administration? >> it boggles the mind. how long taylor will be able to effectively represent the trump administration in kiev is a really important question. and i mean, look, this is a moment when the u.s./ukraine relationship is set to potentially define trump's political future. and it also comes at a time when that country, which is key to the future of european security,

is literally under assault by the russian government. >> is it just never-trumper, is this just a tick for him? >> it's the usual. i mean, he needs something to de-legitimize the people coming at him with legitimate lines of attack that are detrimental and potentially able to end his presidency. it's the same thing that he's been doing for, what, four years that i've been covering him. he's the exact same. give him credit for consistency. i also think you can tell just how much faith he has in mike pompeo because he's not attacking him there at that moment. but he has so few allies left around him that he needs those people. >> i mean, mike pompeo is a witness. so you don't want to alienate. >> keep him happy. >> you can't really alienate the witness because mike pompeo is very much at play in the taylor testimony. he's -- he's implicated for actions here. >> matthew, does there get to a point where the president using the same sort of never-trumpers, you're cnn, that it does -- it starts like the same line doesn't work as well each time?

>> not for his audience. >> right. but the point is, it's only his audience he's talking to i guess. >> and that's enough to prevent conviction in the senate and i really think that's his priority right now. >> i mean, i guess i would say look at what's happening to these republicans in the senate. who was over 50% a year ago is at 39% in iowa. >> a lot of -- i've had a lot of people think that's tariffs, too. that some of this -- >> that's another thing trump did. but my point is that it's -- it's -- we -- we go through these conversations where republicans, he does everything for republicans and republicans back him up. the real question here is whether the american people are going to just allow republicans to go along with the president. and this is a wedge issue for them. it is a wedge issue. they face a division. obviously, there is a base that is -- that buys a cnn attack as a substantive attack. but that is not where the majority of the country is. >> i get the sense -- matthew,

i'm curious -- that if they could find a middle ground to wrap his wrists and at the same time not impeach him, they'd grab it but it doesn't exist, does it? >> doesn't exist now. so what they're left kind of in a position where they have to choose. this is the choice that donald trump forces on every republican. it's the same choice he forced in 2016. >> right. >> what i found in 2016 is if you were a republican, it was probably a safer bet to go with him than it was to start alienating. >> ron johnson. the critics are still going to be against you and the republican base will be against you. >> i thought rich lauer made an interesting point earlier this week, betsy, when he said you're not going to have 20 republicans vote to convict because that divides the party. it was sort of -- he was implying it's either got to be all of them or none of them. >> i think that's right. >> you know, they either all go off the cliff together or not. >> i think it's possible there will be one or two republican outliers or to rich's point, it'll be, you know, dozens. there's not going to be a sort of multiple penguins slowly off

the iceberg. >> it's what happened during the clinton impeachment. there were some democrats that maybe at the end of the day, they went with party unity at the end of the day. >> i would say the difference is, and this is the point you were making earlier, the difference is that the clinton white house allowed people to say -- >> criticize. >> -- this is a terrible action but it's not impeachable. donald trump should have done that three weeks ago and he won't let anyone do that. and now, the public opinion is moving. >> the binary choice he's making it hurting himself. >> it's not necessarily static. i mean, we don't even have public testimony of bill taylor yet. so this is a question. do you think corey gardener is going to face a question of whether he wants to get re-elected or not over this? >> i keep quoting doc brown. where we're headed, there are no roads. we have no idea what the next three weeks are going to be. again, government shutdown may happen. impeachment inquiry in public. all of this. again, all of this before thanksgiving. let's see. ali, betsy, matthew. stick around. coming up, we've got a

democratic member of congress on two of the inquiries handling the impeachment inquiry. plus, what's really behind the doj investigation of itself. we'll ask two former members of the department of justice and the fbi. er members of the department of justice and the fbi. i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

ayou listen to advyour client's goal ofen. sending her daughter to the music school of her dreams. and you help her turn it into reality. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com. lashmakes every lash fullyrom maybsensational.ork. our fanning brush volumizes every kind of lash... ...for a sensational full-fan effect. lash sensational. only from maybelline new york. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down.

metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day.

we said we've been following two breaking news stories today surrounding the department of justice. first, a federal judge ordering doj to hand over grand jury information from the mueller investigation to congress. plus, the doj's origins of the investigation is now a criminal probe. two people who know a lot about how the doj operates. was the head of the fbi's congressional affairs and matt miller, former spokesperson, also an nbc news analyst. all right. let me start with the significance of the grand jury material. greg, what do you think is more significant here than getting

the material or the judge's ruling that it is indeed an official impeachment inquiry? >> i think certainly the latter and in a 75-page opinion that i'm not sure any of us have gone through -- >> that's a long opinion, right, for district level. >> the judge apparently makes it very clear. now, this opinion may be appealed and we'll have to see how that goes. but i've long said that what the president can't do, no president can do, is both be immune from criminal prosecution as the prevailing office of legal counsel opinion says that a president is immune. and at the same time thwart congress's ability to get all the facts about potentially criminal conduct. so we finally see a judge saying exactly right. the president cannot have it both ways. >> what -- what is democrats -- what kind of material are they about to get their hands on? >> it will mostly be material from section one of the report. most of the redactions were not in section two about obstruction of justice. so that's probably the piece of the mueller report where the president had less exposure.

it was really on obstruction of justice where the report directly, you know, kind of implicated him in a crime. but there are a few key things. you may remember this one section that was redacted where the president was in the car on the way to la guardia airport. he got a phone call. you can't tell from the report but it appears it was a call from roger stone. and he got off the phone call and said there are more wiki leaks coming soon. the rest of that is redacted. there are a few other sections like that that i think will be really, really interesting. >> let's talk what we were talking about a little bit before this. the decision to have it as a criminal investigation. the predicate -- you guys were discussing, if anything, if there is, it's likely a criminal referral from the ig investigation is the assumption here. is that fair? or is this just one theory? >> that's a theory. of course, we don't know. but that would make sense. in the absence of a referral from the ig based upon the ig's been doing in reviewing the --

for example -- it certainly makes no sense the durham investigation would exist. it was called a review by the department, not an even investigation. so we've all been wondering, i think former doj officials and elsewhere are wondering what is this all about? this is very unusual. it seemed to place the cart before the horse, meaning to have an investigation before a referral. so if there was no ig referral, that might make some sense. but we just don't know. >> like, what was the difference between the administration review and the ig investigation? >> great question. i mean, greg said we've all been wondering. i think grasping is the better word we've been trying to do. the inspector general review was looking at a very narrow question. you know, whether the fisa application into carter page was appropriately handled. the thing that -- that bill barr launched with this review was to go outside the walls of the justice department and look at the intelligence agencies as well. it's why a lot of people think the real targets of this investigation were people like john brennan and james clapper. something that the ig at the

justice department couldn't do on his own. it's now morphed into a criminal investigation and i think the thing that greg and i and all the other former colleagues that i've talked to in the last 24 hours have been trying to figure out is, what's the predicate? where's the potential crime? >> let me take a step back here and just -- just -- the damage that's being done to the -- to the perception of the department of justice. the right wing and the conservative chamber spent a long time making claims about eric holder. so the right has decided eric holder and the department of justice was run afoul. there is a theory out there that bill barr is doing what he thought eric holder was doing or at least what the conservative critics. but either way, here's what's happening. i don't know if i trust what comes out of the department of justice right now. and fif you can't do that, how o we restore that? i'm starting to wonder do we need to go to a federal reserve model? that we need to create a new layer between a president and

attorney general just because of the abusive nature of politics and the way congress essentially demonizes anybody in that job. >> perception is reality, unfortunately, right? so as much as all of us who i'm a three-time veteran of doj. care deeply about the place. and most of us who are doj veterans just assume that bill barr having been the ig -- the ag previously -- would step in and be a very apolitical, by the book sort of ag. for those of us who would like to think that is still the reality, the problem is that the perception of doj by so many people is that it is operating politically and that's needless to say a terrible thing for doj. >> you were the spokesperson there when this campaign to undermine eric holder's character took place. and, again, we can debate some of the decisions. but it -- it -- it certainly blew up into a different type of perception. >> yeah. >> we got a problem. >> we do but we've had that problem at the justice department for a while. attorneys general have been controversial figures going back

to janet reno was a very controversial figure. >> robert f. kennedy. i could keep going. >> yeah. you can go on for a long time. the -- the -- you know, whether there are reforms or not, the way you fix that is to have an attorney general that acts responsibly. let me give you a contrast. so john durham was appointed by eric holder to investigate cia torture. accused holder of being on a witch hunt. you know what he did? he left durham go off and do his investigation. he didn't put durham on his plane and interrogate foreign officials for him the way barr has done. he didn't get on the phone and talk about the investigation the way barr has done. so at some point, there's a responsibility on the attorney general to behave responsibly. and there will be criticism from the other side. that just comes with the job. but you have the responsibility to behave -- to behave in keeping with that job and i think that's where barr has let us down. >> ultimately, this is on the president who is -- who is basically conditioning the country that an attorney general is supposed to be some sort of personal attorney. i mean, his complaint is is that

jeff sessions did his job. >> yeah. that is clearly the president's intent here. and the problem for doj is that it doesn't seem to be doing anything to try to correct that impression and convince congress and the american people that, no, that's not the way doj operates. >> janet reno went out of her way to appoint a republican, two of them different times to be special counsels. eric holder went out of his way. i mean, barr didn't even make that fig leaf effort. >> no and what the ag would say i'm sure is no matter what i do the partisan nature of washington is going to be such that i'm going to be criticized. i just don't think that's entirely true. the department can do a much better job to try to appear to be apolitical. >> not only that. people want -- they want to believe he wouldn't be political, correct? like, people actually want to give him the benefit of the doubt first. >> yeah. people wanted to believe what he said in his confirmation, which is i don't need this job. i don't need the president's aprovl. that that's not turning out to be

true. >> and he doesn't seem to care. that to me is quite troubling. thank you. both with me now, congressman raja of illinois. he is a member of both intelligence and oversights committees. as part of the house's impeachment inquiry, congressman, i want to first get your reaction to your -- to a pretty successful lawsuit that -- that the house democrats have been engaged in with the trump administration over the contents of the mueller report and, frankly, getting a court to uphold the idea that, yes, indeed this is a formal impeachment inquiry. how important is this for your investigation? >> i think it's important in the sense that, you know, republicans have been claiming that the impeachment inquiry is somehow ill lee jitmeegitimate illegal. but as you saw in the opinion, judge howell resoundingly ruled in favor of the notion that the impeachment inquiry is proper and it compels the production of documents that the white house

has otherwise been trying to prevent producing for purposes of the impeachment inquiry. >> what material -- i'm curious, do you think this is more significant because of the raw material you may be receiving? or because of the -- of how the courts are characterizing the investigation? >> i don't know. i don't know what those grand jury materials actually are. but i think that someone previously had mentioned that apparently president trump or then candidate trump had conversations potentially with roger stone about wiki leaks that may have been in contravention of what he claimed was the truth before. and so we just don't know. we'll have to see what the grand jury materials actually are. but regardless, the ruling does really make it very clear that

the impeachment inquiry is proper and that we have to continue with it right now. and that it compels a production of documents and testimony from the other side. >> how much more evidence do you think you're going to need before you start laying out a public case here? i mean, it is this -- and i've asked this i think of you before and of other of your colleagues -- you know, you can -- you can keep widening the probe. i mean, every day there's a new nugget. there's a bread crumb about a trade deal perhaps with ukraine. you've got this mueller material. some of your colleagues may argue to expand it even further. what's your sense of what you think the scope should be going forward? >> well, i think that right now we're still in the middle of this investigation. and the evidence seems to be mounting that there's corroboration for the whistle-blower's complaints and even mick mulvaney's statement the other day, which i believe was very candid, that the military assistance in question

to the ukraine was actually conditioned on an investigation into donald trump's domestic political rivals. that being said, i'm not aware of any deadline or timeline for completion of this inquiry except that we want to complete it asap. if for no other reason than that there's misconduct potentially going on right now in the white house. and so we got to put a stop to it and find out who's responsible for it asap. >> so, well, i mean, does that mean this timeline of mid-november for hearings, which would then lead you to some form of potential articles in december. that still is a reasonable timeline? or does this stretch into 2020? >> i really don't know. i'm being very honest when i say there has been no deadline communicated to me for any of these things. and i think that the american people don't want us to do this on some kind of a political timetable or calendar.

i humbly submit. i think they want us to get to the bottom of exactly what happened and to prevent it from happening again. we got to know the full -- full extent of the scheme and most importantly, who was involved with it and responsible for it? because we can't on the one hand perhaps hold one or two or three people culpable for it and then allow others to go get off scott free and maybe continue with the misconduct. >> you think you're going to get government funded and this impeachment inquiry all sort of completed at the same time? >> i -- i -- i'm hopeful. i'm hopeful we can kind of walk and chew gum at the same time. but in my humble opinion, i think that what's most important for us on the house intelligence committee and with regard to the impeachment inquiry is we just got to do our job. we got to do it as fairly as possible. withhold judgment until the investigation is completed and make sure the process continues to be fair.

you know, the other side keeps saying that it's unfair but i just have to point out more than 40 republicans are involved with these proceedings right now. they get equal time for questions and to make opening statements. and they can make -- they can ask questions about any topic that they desire. and that's why their claims that it's unfair don't make any sense to me. >> i think one of those 40 include the vice president's brother on that front. very quickly, nafta 2.0 usmca. is that something you guys -- that has to be passed on a bipartisan basis. we know the complicated trade politics of both parties. we're in the highly-polarized climate of impeachment. can that get done in this environment? >> well, you know, with regard to this particular agreement, my understanding is that mr. lighthiser and the trade office from the white house are negotiating right now with the speaker, as well as trying to

earn support from labor groups. i don't know the specifics of the negotiations. this is within the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee as well. i know chairman richie neil is working hard on it. but for sure we know nafta is not a great agreement. it's something that has to be updated. but the question is whether what comes out of this would be better or worse than what we have now. in one regard, i have introduced along with some of my colleagues a big concern about provisions that would lock in what are called exclusivity periods with regard to biologics and prescription drugs. to me, that has no business being within the trade agreement because it basically prevents us from lowering the price of prescription drugs, which would be a horrible outcome. and something that a lot of us want to see out of the agreement. along with enforcement provisions being stiffened and bolstered within the agreement

for labor and environmental issues. >> well, you just outlined why i think walking and chewing gum is going to be highly difficult. over the next couple months. but we'll be watching and you'll be trying. congressman raja, thanks for coming on and sharing your views, sir. appreciate it. >> thanks, chuck. . upahead, top democrats remembering and celebrating the life of elijah cummings today. but many of their speeches, not surprisingly, had a not so hidden message for a certain sitting president. t so hidden message for a certain sitting president. to present to you today. [son]: who are you talking to? [son]: that guy's scary. the first item on the list is selecting a chairman for the... for the advisory board what's this? as well as use the remaining... child care options run out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. old spice antipersprant spray

and old spice antipersprant stick, each has different approchaes to armpits. but they do have one thing they can agree on. no sweat in the nfl hey, its just my name. brought to you by the 48-hour sweat defense of old spice sweat defense. ♪ i'm off to college. i'm worried about my parents' retirement. don't worry. voya helps them to and through retirement... dealing with today's expenses ...while helping plan, invest and protect for the future. so they'll be okay? i think they'll be fine. voya. helping you to and through retirement.

here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware. a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up.

this was a man of the utmost integrity. do you hear me? he had integrity. and he cared about our democracy. he cared about our planet. he cared about our community. he wanted to make sure that we left a society worthy of our children. >> welcome back.

that was maya mora cummings, wife of the late congressman elijah cummings. cummings' life was honored by friends, family, and fellow top democrats, including hilary clinton and former presidents bill clinton and barack obama. they spoke about the america elijah cummings believed in and the importance of protecting it. >> they knew that without the constitution, the laws that were passed under it, the rights were guaranteed by it, and the abuses it was designed to prevent. without that constitution, he would not have been in congress. and so he said to himself, i am certain every day i will not let this promise be sullen. >> he pushed back against the abuse of power. he was unwavering in his defense of our democracy. he had little tolerance for those who put party ahead of country or partisanship above

truths. >> people will look back at this moment and they will ask the question, what did you do? and hearing him, we would be reminded that it falls upon each of us to give voice to the voiceless and comfort to the sick and opportunity to those not born to it. and to preserve and nurture our democracy. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪

i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. from packaging tape... to tape that can bond materials to buildings... and planes. one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions. at 3m, we are solving problems that improve lives. ♪ one idea can unlock a breadth of solutions.

man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b,

are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

welcome back. in addition to the breaking news late this afternoon that a judge ruled democrats are in the midst of an impeachment inquiry, there are other big developments today on the impeachment front. including, that a person close to former national security advisor john bolton who reportedly called efforts to get ukraine to investigate the president's political opponents a drug deal. says his lawyers have been in contact with impeachment officials about testifying. i repeat john bolton's lawyers have been in touch with adam schiff's committee to talk about testifying. ali vitali, betsy, matthew are all back. matthew, if you're the president, what do you make of that? >> well, i think you're used to it by now because we've been watching basically high-level officials of your own administration or of your national security council march up to capitol hill and give these briefings or testimony to the impeachment committees that is ultimately extremely

damaging. so bolton would just be another domino to fall if he were to testify and testify adversely to the president. >> you're going to find yourself having to advise remarks about john bolton over the last decade perhaps. >> i haven't talked that much about john bolton but i definitely would if he spoke honestly. i think the real question is he -- it's not just, you know, what he said about these things but the fact that he decided to go to the nsc lawyers after this. so he seems, from the materials we have thus far, that potential illegal activity by the president. he seems to be checking with the lawyers a lot about actions after they've taken place. so and i think what's important about this investigation is a lot of testimony's already locked in. fiona hill. a and taylor's testimony is locking in a lot already. so if he's testifying, it seems like he will be locked into a series of actions we already know about, which would be damning enough. >> quite the character witness

for the entire probe perhaps. >> no joke. has the potential to be a star testimony -- >> i also think as a character witness. meaning, he reinforces -- certainly a character -- but reinforces the legitimacy perhaps. >> certainly. good house good housie ining se approval. what is so important as larger context on capitol hill and spilling the beans about his time in the white house is it highlights the extent to which his presidency has dogged or been successful to the extent to which he has had that and stepping back from that investigation, even now trump would have thought that bolten was an ally. that endeared bolten, but we

still have him agreeing to consent to stuff to his panel. that is something that will drive the president crazy. >> he loved to say that john bolten would have me in warring all over the world, but he has not unloaded on him yet. i imagine that is coming. >> he said he was fired. >> yeah, i'm talking about like -- >> yeah, is he a trumper, you're right he had a oilist title to him a little bit in the administration. it becomes harder and harder when people are saying all right, i will go to capitol

hill. >> he may not have the much to offer if he purposely with drew from the process. it is slightly different than say ambassador tailor or volker. >> the big question for the committee is why did you do that, right? this is a question for -- why did you go to the lawyers? why did you cut yourself out of this. if he says i was worried about potentially illegaltivity, that would be a big indictment here. >> i think you're sort of both agreeing, his presence may be more important than the substance. he may just reaffirm fiona hill. what have we seen for who weeks?

cooperation. >> yeah, they say he was in a meeting with the senior official and he was so irritated by bringing up giuliani's investigation, the efforts to find was that he prematurely shut down the meeting and directed people to go to his lawyers. if bolten says he remembers that and he remembers sondland working with the ukrainians -- >> isn't it just another number for democrats to say -- >> i think a former national security advisor, he may know a lot of information, but that was

a big taed today that that was a taed that was compelling, the idea that that person was in meetings with the president all day. is it how, i'm concerned about the an monimity. if you want to tell your story, put your name on it, it doesn't matter if you're giving the proceeding to charity. >> i would say my experience is that they usually get outed after the book. >> it is amazing but i remember another book that came out and it is less important.

we'll all be right back with an important update on a baby shark attack. stick around. update on a baby sk attack stick around rformance comes in lots of flavors. there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

to he♪ you grow and protect your wealth. hi, i'm nfl player montez sweat old spice, sweat, is just my last name. i don't represent sweat and won't be a party to this at any time. that's not what we heard.

i represent sweat, and it's party time. ♪

the video replays were grainy and jumpy, but it was 1924, it has been 95 years since

the last time a game was played here in washington, the dc team is now called the nationals, but everyone in this typically divided town is behind the nationals. we have the fully grown stands in the stands dancing to baby shark. the washington national cathedral is showing their true color. the nation nal mall. the gnnats and the astros are taking on game three again. let's go 1-0 today. my bubblies. i have them back. we'll be back with more "meet the press daily." among my guests this sunday will be the president's new national security advisor. "the beat" with ari melberg.

>> if the tan suit was controversial for obama, i'm waiting for you to be in a full washington nationals suit. red top to bottom. >> i will say that i'm rooting for you, i had to be reminded that the astros are who you're trying to beat. i trust your judgment. >> all right, brother. >> knock them dead. good luck. thanks to you at home for watching and joining us right now. baseball is very important so i get that, but we have a big show tonight. this is our first show since the block buster news broke that bill bar's justice department is doing what was long asked. that is a criminal investigation