the s&p also closing about 2 1/2 points lower and the nasdaq closing 49 points lower percentage wise. that's the biggest dropper. almost 0.06% lower. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm going to see you back here tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern with stephanie ruhl ae and 3:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we long abandoned the practice asking where the bottom is for donald trump and supporters in congress but we may finally have an answer. today as decorated combat veteran alexander vindman who works as the top ukraine expert at the white house headed to capitol hill to testify in the impeachment investigation into donald trump. he did so after being accused of being a spy by right-wing defenders of the president's. it's a despicable smear on a man who says he voiced his concerns about donald trump's demand for dirt on political rivals from the ukrainians out of a sense of

duty. we'll get to the gop attempts at character assassination that will define the president and his party long after today's hearing. but we start with the facts that are sending the president into a tailspin today. as one more witness, and this time, one who listened in on the fateful call between donald trump and president zelensky, offers devastating testimony confirming the pressure campaign against the ukrainians, the case against the president gains an unimpeachable witness and one with firsthand knowledge of the phone call that put the president's impeachment in motion. vinland w vind m vindman who was awarded a purple heart for his service in iraq testified he reported to his superiors on two occasions his concerns about the pressure campaign against the ukrainians who were being asked to deliver political favors to the president. in his opening statement, vindman describes his alarm over what he heard on the president's call. saying this, "i was concerned by

the call. i did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen, and i was worried about the implications for the u.s. government's support of ukraine. i realized that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens and burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. this would all undermine u.s. national security. following the call i, again, reported my concerns to nsc's lead counsel." vindman also delivering an implicit rebuke of the misconduct he witnessed saying this, "i am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our kcountry irrespective of party or politics. for over 20 years as an active duty united states military officer and diplomat, i have served this country in a nonpartisan manner and have done so with the utmost respect and professionalism for both

republicans and democrats." reports from capitol hill today also strongly suggest that republicans were determined to learn more about the whistle-blower's identity from vindman. congresswoman debbie wasserman-schultz telling nbc news what she saw behind closed doors. saying this, "what the republicans are trying to do very clearly in their questioning is try to front door/back door vindman who revealing who the whistle-blower is. that's where we start today with our favorite reporters and friends. with us on capitol hill, msnbc's garrett haake. at "the new york times," white house correspondent annie karni. former republican congressman, now an independent, david jolly is back. with us at the table, former federal prosecutor for the southern and eastern districts of new york, berit berger, plus our friend donny deutsch is back. garrett, let me start with you. take me inside the room with alexander vindman. >> reporter: vindman's testimony this morning or all day today really has been very credible. every republican and democratic lawmaker who came out talked

about someone who was a very serious professional, dedicated his life to this country, came once again with notes and specific details about his concerns about the president's behavior and not just on that phone call. remember, vindman is important in part because he's the first witness who was actually listening to that phone call to come testify and while he raised concerns about what he heard on that phone call, he also raised concerns weeks earlier in another meeting in which he heard the same language being used by gordon sondland. the president's ambassador to the eu about linking investigations of the bidens to military aid. so vindman was on the record not once, but twice, with his concerns and he goes a little bit further. he's very important to democrats in particular because he makes an explicit argument that what the president did weakens america's national security. democrats have hung their entire impeachment strategy on making this about something bigger than another presidential no-no. they have said that the president's actions hurt

national security. vindman says the same thing. that by connecting our defense of ukraine on the front line against russia to a political prerogatives of the president of the united states, the president put national security at risk. and that is what makes him important and that is part of what has made him something of a contentious witness for both parties today. >> garrett, i'm struck by the images, and when you look at how quickly and how dramatically public opinion has swung, 55% of americans in the latest quinnipiac poll now support donald trump's impeachment. and removal from office. numbers that never appeared nearly that high after the mueller report. and you look at this witness and if you just slow down and just take me through the drama of seeing alexander vindman in full uniform appear on capitol hill as the first witness in the impeachment investigation who was on the line listening to the call that donald trump still describes as perfect, but that

put the entire impeachment process in motion. >> reporter: well, you can take it back further than that. take it back to last night when his opening statement started to lo leak out. you had some right-wing defenders of the president attacking his credibility before he even shows up, then in walks vindman in his full dress uniform as a lieutenant colonel in the u.s. army, somebody who had been wounded in iraq, a purple heart recipient, who is also the first sitting white house staffer, someone who could go back to his desk tonight and find a box sitting on it if the president wants to go that far, could be fired for showing up here. but instead, puts, you know, the bird on his shoulder, in his full dress uniform and comes down here and testifies for, you know, a session that is still ongoing right now. that's the framing that democrats have always wanted for this impeachment inquiry. this is about country, not party. it's about sacred duty. and you heard some of that same language in vindman's opening

statement that he's a patriot, he's an immigrant to this country and does see all of this as his duty to defend the nation. he sees that as what he's doing in that room today. >> annie karni, if the white house had a nightmare scenario for the president's impeachment investigation, this had to be it. a full -- a witness who's an iraqi war veteran who's not a partisan, who could never under any scenario be described as part of a deep state. heading to capitol hill and describing picking up the phone or walking upstairs to the white house counsel's office , not once, but twice, voicing his concerns internally trying to raise the alarms about what he saw as a rogue foreign policy. what's the white house have to say for itself today other than smearing this man? >> i mean, not much. it's quiet, like a lot of people have been very low key. the people -- jared kushner who has taken a lead role is in riyadh at a conference.

mick mulvaney has been keeping a low profile since his press briefing. rudy giuliani has been m.i.a. so the people we usually hear from driving a message are -- are keeping a low profile right now, but he -- this is exactly the profile of a man who is hard to argue with and the smear campaigns, to me, seemed lack -- they didn't stick. you see this guy walking in in his uniform, he's an immigrant who came to this country, believes in this country and served for this country who feels it's his civic duty to his adopted homeland to go and testify against the president of the united states. this is probably not where he saw his career leading him to this moment. also, another thing that came out here, at least in the opening statement, is that his testimony now really brings into question the testimony of sondland who was a trump appoint appointee, a former campaign donor, who this is the third witness to come forward and sort of contradict what sondland in his testimony told congress.

so it's opened up not just questions about donald trump's conduct but questions about whether other people involved in this investigation have possibly perjured themselves in the process. >> annie, that's exactly where i wanted to go with you, thank you for leading me there. i think i can put that up. here's what vindman testified to. here's where there's daylight, i think is putting it generously at this point, a flat-out contradicti contradiction. >> yeah. >> some democrats who have heard both of these testimonies. here's what vindman tested to, "i stated to ambassador sondland his requests were inappropriate, requests to investigate biden and his son had nothing to do with national security and such investigations were not something the nsc was going to get involved in or push." that account from vindman has been corroborated fiona hill and bill taylor's testimony. here's part of sondland being testified under the lights today.

sondland testified "i recall no discussions with any state department of white house official about former vice president biden or his son. nor do i recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the bidens." so there have been sort of rumblings about sondland having exposure on perjury since last week, but i think this week it comes into focus as you see those -- one of those statements must not be true. >> one of those statements must not be true and it's three against one now and, again, it's like you look at the backgrounds of the people and the characters here and vindman is a very -- person who's not political, who's a military background, who seems to be doing this out of -- out of a sense of duty, not out of a sense of protecting anyone involved. sondland comes at this story as a trump appointee, as a political appointee, as someone who supported the president's campaign.

so we see different motivations here at play, potentially. >> annie, i want to get you on the record about another sort of character in the impeachment drama we haven't talked about much, but you and your colleagues have reported on him a good deal. he's the person in the white house counsel's office sort of detailed or assigned to dealing with matters of national security. this is from some reporting from sort of the beginning of this scandal about the cia also reaching out to this lawyer who had the two alarms raised from alexander vindman. you guys reported this. "the cia's general counsel courtney simmons elwood called john a. eisenberg, a deputy counsel and counterpart at the national security counsel according to three people familiar with the matter. he was already aware of vague concerns about the call. ms. elwood, mr. eisenberg and their deputies spoke multimillimultiple times the following week. they decided the accusations had a reasonable basis. so mr. eisenberg now is in receipt of a fire alarm pulled

at the cia by the cia general counsel when she first became aware of this whistle-blower's consternations. it's my understanding that he wasn't able to file his complaint at the cia, had to go to the dni. he also was aware of at least one call, maybe two, from alexander vindman. what are folks close to mr. eisenberg saying about his knowledge and what did he doid s put this transcript where it wa as accessible as it should have been, knowing this transcript was a problematic document for the president. like a test, another example of how donald trump has been an amazing civics lesson for learning what -- what do you do when you have a complaint and you need to report it to your superior, how far does it go? this is another reason why, you know, what are the different options for someone who is struck inside, internally, by

behavior they believe is wrong? the whistle-blower took one approach, reporting it to the white house counsel's office is another approach. you know, talking to journalists like the -- or writing anonymous op-peds is another approach. people have taken different approaches when they are concerned with behavior that they witness inside of this administration. it's also a question of more and more pressure of we need to hear from john bolton who -- who was kind of where the buck stops and was privy to a lot of these conversations, direct contact with the president on these matters, and that's still a big question. will -- will john bolton testify or not? >> you know, david jolly, there are these two hot spinning plates today that seem to be a devastating witness for the president, sure. >> someone as annie karni is i alluding to, nothing in his dna that would incentivize telling a lie, nothing in his dna that

would motivate him to make waves. military officials have reverence for the chain of command. so that he raised concerns at all is different from a civilian raising concerns and simply complaining to a chief of staff. can you just expand on some of the substantive testimony that he gave today as well as the symbolic impact of his presence up on capitol hill as an impeachment witness? >> the symbolic impact is you have somebody who is honoring his duty to country ahead of any political duty which is different than most of the characters we have seen thus far. sondland, even bill taylor, and others. nose who m those who may be career but not active duty. taylor, formerly a west point person who did serve. what you had today in lieutenant colonel vindman is somebody essentially going around the chain of command, he ultimately reports to the commander in chief. today he decided he was willing to speak to the united states congress, even if it would shine a dark light on the commander in chief. his role in the sequence of the

impeachment process and making . it's elemental. donald trump confessed to essentially an impeachable act. donald trump confessed to asking ukraine to investigate biden. mick mulvaney corroborated it when he said we do it all the time, get over it. bill taylor last week confirmed it in his testimony and colonel vindman explained it today. the statement that vindman left, garrett referred to this earlier, he said my concern is it would undermine the national security of the united states. that is the frame that the colonel has provided around all of the confessions and corroborations and confirmation and it is why i have said this before, i believe it with certainty, donald trump will become the third president impeached by the house of representatives, the fourth if you include nixon, and the longer this goes on, the likelihood is still small, i think the likelihood grows that he could be facing expulsion through a conviction in the

united states senate. >> you agree about the strength of the case? >> i do. it seems like the democrats are really building their case slowly but witness by witness, i mean, one of the things you said in the lead was here they have this unassailable witness, coming from my perspective as a former prosecutor, we didn't get witnesses like this. you had to build your case with people that oftentimes had really checkered criminal pasts. to see somebody like this come in with their, you know, uniform on, reciting their history of service to this country, it is a strong basis to build a case. >> and what do you think about, you know, we have a list of all the witnesses so far. kurt volker, marie yovanovitch, fiona hill, gordon sondland, bill taylor, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. these people with so much more to lose than gain. it would appear before this week, largely anonymous diplomats and career public servants, if you look at how

public opinion has swung in a way that it never swung during the mueller probe, it has to do with the fact that none of these people are political figures. they are all people who spent their lives and their careers serving the country. democrats and republicans. >> absolutely. and from my perspective, that's why it is so frustrating to see the vitreal hat cothat comes ou before we've seen these people's testimony. before it's actually been made completely public. really trying to undercut them. saying, you know, this is a never trumper making these statements. >> is that witness tampering -- >> exactly. really, to me, strikes me as sort of a pattern of witness tampering here. not only do these people have to overcome the incredible administrative hurdles just to get their story out there, just to be heard, but then they have to do this all in the face of knowing they're going to be personally attacked by the president of the united states. i mean, if this isn't witness tampering or a way of discouraging other people to come forward, i don't know what it is. >> so, donny, tie this all together. i feel like you're always the

voice of caution. when it seems it's clear, your feeling is it never is. that there's a big swath of the country that accepts the lunacy they hear from the right. >> it's interesting, that's exactly where i was going to go. i want to talk about a story because today the story got very clear. if you're selling something, at the end of the day, this impeachment has to be sold to the american voting republic. it's very simple. you tell a simple story that has relevance to the end user. the end user is the voter. we've heard a lot about ukraine. we've heard about, you know, national aid to ukraine. we've heard about, you know, the bidens. and the challenge is, well, how does that come back to the kitchen table? basically vindman set it up today when he said undermining national security because now i can turn to a voter. i'm going to take that one step further and say the president, his primal job, is to protect us. messed with your national security. forget our national security. he made you and your family less safe. most holy sacred thing he can do and he did it for his own behalf. that's a kitchen-table issue. it's not about ukraine. it's not about military aid. it's not about the bidens and

any kind of scandal. it's about he, to you, the voter, made you and your family less safe. that's something that stays on the kitchen table. >> let me ask you about what annie reported, that all the people that would normally have the line responsibility for -- for smearing the mueller probe when that was the investigation hanging over this white house, one is in riyadh, which is an irony, we need another hour to delve into. the others are sort of under their desks in a duck and cover. you surprised? >> not at all. and, you know, two things are happening. there's a duck and cover. i know in the next segment we're going to get into the smear campaign. people like john thune and liz cheney. you're seeing silence from the republicans, or republicans, obviously, mitt romney is at the front of it. i don't believe it's beyond comprehension, as david said. we're early in this. the democrats is got to keep it tight. it is not beyond comprehension that they can't get 20 senator. we all know in a private ballot the republicans don't want him there. nobody wants him there anymore.

he's really not good for anybody. you and i both know, everybody at this table knows they can take a secret ballot, i guarantee you there would be about a 98-2 vote because the republicans don't want him there. they just need air cover. as each day goes on, they get a little bit more air cover. if they can keep the story as simple as i made it, president sold out your safety, that's a compelling story. >> all right. annie carney, berit berger, thank you for starting us off. after the break, the smear campaign against alexander vindman was a classic trump-inspired fox news gop operation greased with the primetime appearance and accusation that vindman might be a spy. yes, mitch mcconnell, marco rubio, ted cruz, rob portman, this is who you are now. also ahead, mike pence at a fork in the road faced with a choice between clearing his own name in the ukrainian pressure campaign or going down with the trump ship. we'll bring you brand-new reporting on pence. and president loose lips still spilling military and intelligence secrets about the raid that killed isis founder

baghdadi. we'll look at the president's history of loose-lips disclosures and bring you new reporting about concerns from top national security officials. all those stories coming up. ies♪ for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car, that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us. that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪

on a scale of one to five? one to five? it's more like five million. there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry clive! actually, really angry. thank you. but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling... and then do something about it. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone.

customers into fanatics change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! i have a really good feeling about this. here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy!

glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today. lieutenant colonel alexander vindman who is right now testifying in the impeachment probe represents the beating heart of the quintessential american story. he and his family, jewish refugees carrying only their suitcases and $750, based on reporting in "the new york times," fled the soviet union when he was 3 years old in search of a better life. his father worked multiple jobs and learned english at night so

his son could grow up, graduate from college, receive a military commission, and serve the united states in the form of multiple overseas tours on combat deployment in iraq in 2003, vindman was injured by an ied. he was awarded a purple heart. vindman has a master's degree from harvard. he's worked in several embassies and joined the national security council last year after passing extensive background check. unlike some other west wing advisers we know. his biography and life of service make the attacks against him remarkable. at a time when attacks on once sacred institutions and their leaders have stopped being noteworthy of newsworthy. trump went from not knowing him to calling him a never trumper in the course of an hour and a half this morning. that's nothing compared to the smear campaign happening on cable news. >> we also know he was born in the soviet union, emigrated with his family young. he tends to feel simpatico with

the ukraine. >> it seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about ukrainian defense. i don't know that he's concerned about american policy, but his main mission was to make sure that the ukraine got those weapons. i understand that, we all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from. like me, i'm sure that vindman has the same affinity. >> here we have a u.s. national security official who is advising ukraine while working inside the white house apparently against the president's interests and usually they spoke in english. isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story? >> i find that astounding, and, you know, some people might call that espionage. >> except those people aren't chickenshit like the three of you and know he passed a background check that the president's daughter and son-in-law didn't. >> did you just say what i think you said? >> i don't know. joining our conversation, former u.s. ambassador -- would never say that, he's here to save us,

to elevate us. nick burns. he advised bush 41, bush 43. can we just start -- will you just cut through this lunacy? we don't even always get on the air with all the smears and debasement. we try not to amplify donald trump's attacks and certainly not hers. but i -- what's happening? ambassador? >> shameful behavior by those people attacking lieutenant colonel vindman's patriotism. here's someone who was wounded in iraq. who served his country. he's everything we want our young people to be. he told the truth today. he saw something that disturbed him and he went to a lawyer and he reported it. exactly what a military officer is supposed to do. and you can bet, nicolle, it took a lot of guts for him to show up to face -- to honor the subpoena and testify today because he's serving in the white house right now. on the national security council. you can imagine what that atmosphere is like. inside the white house, you and i both worked in the white house where a

urged him not to testify. we should honor him today. i thought it was an important -- a very important day in this impeachment proceedings to have somebody in uniform come forward and speak the truth in a way that completely undercuts the president's story here. and if you -- if it follows masha yovanovitch, mike mckinney, four nonpartisan officers, this is an indictment of the president. >> i want to ask you, you know all the players, one we haven't seen on capitol hill but heard of him through the testimony of fiona hill and bill taylor. john bolton. i worked alongside him in the bush years. he described what rudy and mick mulvaney were doing as a drug deal. i mean, do you think the fact pattern now with witness after witness after witness is so clear that -- that bolton's testimony is almost being heard through his deputies, his lieutenants, and the people around this policy? >> well, nicolle, you and i both

worked with ambassador bolton. i hope he testifies because he would -- he would have perfect knowledge of what the president's mind was, what the president was trying to do. he obviously saw the power play by rudy giuliani. it's very significant now. we've heard from two people who worked directly for john bolton. lieutenant colonel iona hill wh courageously herself. the fact that they worked for him, they've testified, i think tells you that the nsc, the national security council, was very concerned about this alternate universe that existed. rudy giuliani and a couple of his friends trying to, frankly, take down joe biden, dig up dirt on him. they got the president's ear. so john bolton should testify. i think he owes it to the country to testify. >> karine jean pierre is also here. what do you make of where the democrats have landed this so far? i agree with ambassador burns' assessment that it's now crystal

clear that this parallel rogue politically motivated policy created consternation at the highest levels of the nsc including the president's national security adviser john bolton. but do they have enough if they don't get bolton up on capitol hill? >> i think they do. we have to remember, more witness have testified, given testimony, than have not. >> right. >> we have taylor who we were just talking about who was -- who was incredible. we -- when you saw legislators coming out of that testimony, they were shaking, how much his testimony was so powerful. 15-page opening statement. and i think the democrats are playing this just right. i think today with the resolution, as we're learning what's in there, i think pelosi's so smart to keep this all in the intel committee and not put it in the other committee. the government reform committee. where you have folks like meadows and jordan who are attack dogs for donald trump. i think they are doing just the right way and now it's going to be -- there's going to be a public hearing where you'll hear from a lot of -- >> right. >> -- these folks that have testified. and so i think now it's just continuing following the fact.

we have to remember, republicans, they're not pounding the facts. they're not pounding the law. right? they're pounding the table. >> they're -- >> they're pounding the table. >> garrett, take me inside -- bring us some situational awareness. what's going on in these rooms? i mean, there's been some reporting from eric swalwell and debbie wasserman-schultz that there seem to be a witch hunt inside, what the democrats call a witch hunt, to try to drive out of alexander vindman the name of the whistle-blower. what else are republicans up to up there? >> reporter: yeah, it's interesting, while most of the country it seems has moved on from the questions about the whistle-blower, specifically who he or she is, or what knowledge they had given all these other witnesses we have seen, republicans are still very interested in finding out who the whistle-blower is, who he or she talked to, what they knew. and one of the things that happened in that room in the basement this morning is republicans in questioning vindman were throwing out a bunch of names, we're told. they were say, have you talked to this person, did you speak with this person?

democrats moved very quickly to shut that down. adam schiff told the republicans they had to stop that line of questioning. i'm told there was some very tense words between democratic members of the committee there. they felt as though republicans were fishing. essentially, throwing names out there to see if they could create some kind of connections of who vindman might have talked to. suggesting that who might have been, you know, the inside the white house resistance here. and also, complete in the knowledge that these transcripts will all eventually be released. >> yeah. >> reporter: they could leave a paper trail for all of us in the public and journalists to say, okay, republicans mentioned these names and while they may never come out and say i think person x, y, or z is the whistle-blower, if that name keeps coming up in a transcript, they know we'll go chase it. that got shut down fairly quickly. we are told, in the scif this morning. it's another one of those things that heightened the tension between the republicans and democrats on this committee. >> take us inside the news that broke in the 3:00 hour just before we sat down here. what's happening procedurally? >> reporter: this resolution that the house will vote on on thursday is really interesting.

it allows this inquiry to move forward. as karine was starting to talk about, nancy pelosi is shaping the way this will go much like the managers tonight in the world series games will select their lineups and lay out their strategy, what she's done here is selected her starting pitcher. it will be adam schiff. the next stage of this will go through the intel committee. they will have the public hearings. they will question witnesses in public. they will produce a report. and only then will they hand things over to the judiciary committee, which since time immemorial has been the most partisan committee on capitol hill in both parties, that's where the flame throwers are. the fights will be delayed. one little nugget buried in this that i found really interesting, one of the things that republicans have demanded since the word, go, on this, is the president's attorneys have the right to question witnesses. pelosi includes that here in this resolution but only if the judiciary committee stage and only essentially as a reward for good behavior. in the resolution it says if the white house continues to

stonewall subject to the discretion of the chairi, in ths case, jerry nadler, that right could be curtailed. little bit of carrot, little bit of stick and lot of personnel choices made here as to who will lead this inquiry going forward over the next few weeks. >> garrett haake, our viewers can't see you up there, i can see all demands on you literally and figuratively. i want to go to david jolly. i want to -- just weigh in. it would seem that any sort of hesitation, any flinching, blinking, that we saw from speaker pelosi on mueller, this is the complete opposite. this is a well-oiled machine. this is a master tactician. this is the woman in the picture standing over donald trump saying, mommy's had enough of your law breaking, you're going to be impeached. >> no, that's exactly right, nicolle. you know, i was critical of nancy pelosi's handling of the mueller report on the matter of ukraine, i think she is handling this masterfully. and part of it is that she --

she gave jurisdiction to adam schiff. they have kept this behind closed doors to minimize some of the republican outbursts. for republicans who are frustrated that it's currently behind closed doors, well, it's because you behave like children for the past 18 months. they had to do this to maintain control of the responsible proceeding. and what ultimately will happen is some of these witnesses that have provided the most damning testimony will have an opportunity to testify publicly. we will see the likes of the names we heard appearing behind closed doors and then the inflection point for nancy pelosi will be around a few things. do you call john bolton for public testimony? or do you call mike pompeo for public testimony? the person who oversaw all of this who has demonstrated publicly he cannot handle hard questions around this topic. he acts scared and he acts guilty. >> yeah. >> and then the actual impeachment article that is drafted by the judiciary committee, how clean do you keep it?

to donny's point. is it simply that the president asked ukraine to interfere or do you tie quid pro quo to it? the reason that matters is if you get too aggressive, you give senators an opportunity to say the evidence doesn't prove the charge. if you keep it clean, you run the risk that it's not actually rising to the level of impeachment. those will be some critical moment moments. to this point, she's handled it masterfully, speaker pelosi. i suspect she will continue to do so which is why republicans have no answer for where she's going with this. >> your name's been invoked. >> i would add in the plan "b" to it, the national security part. that's what's going to matter to the public and the public is going to drive that. that 55% goes to 60%, to 65%, the republicans have more air cover. they can't just stay at, oh, they tried to interview, tried to get dirt. that's not enough. it's got to come back to the voter and our national security. >> ambassador burns, if you could, you elevated us at the beginning, i'm going to ask you now to put a button on this for us now. where do you think at the end of this mementos day, this first witness, this first person who

was on this call, testifying before capitol hill, what is the case to the public after today? >> i think the case to the public is you've had now five or six career officials, nonpartisan, military and diplomatic, step forward to say what the president did was illegal and an abuse of his power. and when the american people understand that this is not a political thing, that these are people who served the country, i think they're going to believe them. they're very credible people. and for me today was a transitional day. because after the diplomats, you have a military officer, people who served this country faithfully, that's going to be convincing to the average american. this is not a political food fight among politicians. these are career people coming forward who are telling the truth at great risk to themselves and to their careers. i think that's the silver lining here. that the american public can see. we have honest people in the government who tell the truth and honor the constitution. that's their oath of office. not just to honor the president of the united states.

>> i think what you just said undergirds the big swings in public support for impeachment. these are people with everything to lose and nothing to gain. ambassador burns, thank you so much for spending some time with us. >> thank you, vice president and the yes-or-no questions he won't or can't answer these days. we'll go inside mike pence's ♪ limu emu & doug

and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

will you release those transcripts so the american people can review them, your own transcripts? is. >> i'd have no objection to that. we're discussing that with white house counsel. as we speak. >> that was three weeks ago. we still have not seen the transcript of the president's call with you raukrainian presi zelensky, a call that took place in mid-september, les th. white house officials are divided over whether releasing the details of the call would help or hurt, according to new reporting by nbc news. it says this, "one concern

raised by some of trump's allies is that releasing his call with zelensky was a mistake because it fueled the impeachment inquiry rather than tamp it down these people said. another is a compare son of pence in trump's calls with zelensky could potentially make the president's self-described perfect conversation appear significantly less so." hard to read with a straight face. joining the conversation, nbc news correspondent carol lee whose byline is on that story. carol, take us through the state, tragic state of being mike pence. >> well, look, those were some of the arguments of folks who are against release this transcript. there's also people who think you shouldn't release transcripts generally like this because of precedent and, you know, waters down executive privilege and various things like that, but there are people who also feel like particularly those around the vice president that they should put his transcript out there because it would, so to speak, clear his name because he's come under a lot of heat for whatever role he may or may not have had or knowledge he would have had. he hasn't answered any of those

questions directly. even though he's been asked multiple times in the pressure campaign on ukraine and the withholding of the aid. so, you know, a white house official told us they're still . another person who's involved in this said that, you know, one of the things that they're considering when they think about releasing this is that there's all of this terrible testimony for the president coming out of the hill and they really don't have anything to counter it. and so if something like the transcript of pence's call with zelensky could potentially, in their view, push back or show that there's no there, there. that's one of the other reasons why they're thinking about it. you know, nicolle, ing about this three weeks in after the vice president said that just is another example of how they just do not have a strategy and not everyone is on the same page in that white house. >> but would you put -- so i'm

looking through some of these transcripts. i'd rather talk to you than listen to mike pence, but he can't answer yes-or-no questions. so he's asked by a reporter, were you ever aware, mr. vice president, of interest in the bidens? he doesn't say yes or no. he says, i never discussed the issue with the bidens. he said, were you aware? he says, what i can tell you. it would seem mike pompeo, secretary of the state, i already used chicken poo-poo so i'm not going to use it again, mike pompeo and vice president pence are not answering yes-or-no questions. they are not describing donald trump's conduct as perfect the way donald trump is, and at the same time, they're not defending all of the executive branch officials who work for them including a military aide who is at this hour on capitol hill testifying about the facts. >> yeah, but, and the one thing that is different in the way that the vice president and secretary of state respond to these questions is the vice president is at least more pleasant about it. he doesn't seem to -- >> this is true. >> -- get agitated by the questions. >> this is true. >> even if he's not answering them. and, but he's not, and you're

absolutely right that when you -- if you look at what he says, he's asked very direct questions. what knowledge did you have about this? he says things like, you know, the president -- the transscript of the president's call shows there was no quid pro quo or wasn't any pressure and it's, you know, it's obviously not answering the question that was asked. and i think if you talk to people, they'll tell you that, you know, the people around the vice president are increasingly worried because he has his own political ambitions. it's no secret to anyone that he aspires to potentially run someday for president. and this could wind up being a real blemish on him if he were to pursue higher office. and it woucould come back to hu him, so there's worry about that and there's a sort of effort to, or at least conversations about how to keep that from happening and how to make it so that this does the least amount of damage to him as possible because, frankly, two options are he either knew what was going on and he didn't say anything, or

he was participating in it in some way. >> i have so many questions for you. i'm going to boil it down to two more, carol. how, i remember during the mueller investigation, there was a real effort among sort of pence-aligned republicans that i came into contact with just sort of wall him off to preserve him for whatever reason, should he end up, i don't know, maybe they -- maybe they knew donald trump would withhold military aid for dirt on burisma, hunter biden, could be convicted and needed someone to move into the office with no corners. is it the same sort of effort, same sort of inside and outside sort of political and legal operation around vice president pence right now? >> yeah. that's a good point. there's this idea that -- part of it is -- we've seen this from the earliest days of the presidency, is they've -- they're really fine with this narrative out there that, you know, shucks, the vice president didn't really know what was going on, he was just out of the loop. they don't seem to mind that being out there because it

inoculates him while making him look, perhaps, you know, not super powerful and inoculates him -- >> this is the only white house where looking stupid is preferential. you prefer looking stupid and out of loop to looking criminal. that's just an amazing -- i worked in a white house. this is an amazing statement or commentary on where we are. >> well, the problem that the vice president has, we don't know what he knew, what conversations he had, what the nature of conversations he had were, but there's -- the way that the impeachment inquiry is going, there seems a very high chance that that will come out. but there are going to be people who either were aware peripherally or directly of what the vice president's involvement and knowledge was throughout this months-long process and so, you know, he's not going to be able -- that whole approach of, you know, being out of the loop and saying you don't know, and, you know, being okay with being out of the loop, it doesn't seem like it's going to hold up this time.

>> and i understand, carol lee, you know better than me, that no one spends more time in the oval office than mike pence. no one's going anywhere. we're going to sneak in a break and the table jumps in on this on the other side of the break. k fights cancer, repairs shattered bones, relieves depression, restores heart rhythms, helps you back from strokes, and keeps you healthy your whole life. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you.

till he signed up for unitedhealthcare medicare advantage. (bold music) now, it's like he has his own health entourage. he gets medicare's largest healthcare network, a free gym membership, vision, dental and more. there's so much to take advantage of. can't wait till i'm 65. a few more chairs, please. unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans,

including the only plans with the aarp name. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage. . david jolly on being mike pence. >> mike pence is guilty without question. mike pence was told by trump to skip zelensky's inauguration in may. certainly he would have been told why. the phone call happened on july 25th, the text messages occurred throughout august, and on september 1, donald trump sends mike pence to meet with ukraine president zelensky in warsaw, poland for pence to deliver the message that, mr. president, you are not receiving your aid. there is no way vice president mike pence would have gone into that meeting without a full brief of the white house's posture towards ukraine. he simply would not have.

it would have been too dangerous of a national security moment to do so. the question becomes, then, nikoan nicolle, if it was an impeachment for congress to do this, wasn't it also an opportunity for mike pence to further the behavior? the white house won't go that far out of prudence and time, but they can certainly censure him. he's looking like a weak man. for a man who likes to profess to honesty to his religious convictions, he is a weak man unwilling to accept the truth and unwilling to speak the truth, and it stands in stark contrast to the lieutenant today who was a profile in courage and has been his entire life. >> it's interesting to say that pence is going to be tainted by this, and i agree with you.

david, thank you for saying this. if you work to everything is about the power, and you say, boy, a nikki haley ticket would be killing it by a landslide. that's what the republicans would want to see. >> does mitt romney have to have voted for conviction? i don't think a republican would vote to convict this president. >> i just believe we're headed to some very unusual places. >> mike pence, i think, he's not on the outside looking in, he's at the heart of the scandal, right? there are two reasons why they don't want this transcript to be released. it's basically, did he cross the line and go too far on his own zelensky? even more show how widely

abnormal, and if it was the same, he's part of the conspiracy. carol, i don't want the hour to end without getting in your reporting on president loose lips. take us through some of the disclosures around the successful raid that resulted in the death of baghdadi. >> my colleague and i talked to current and former military officials who kind of walked us through the transcript, basically, of the president's remarks on sunday morning about the baghdadi raid, and pointed out all the areas that raised concern for them. and there were many. it was everything from the fact that he disclosed how the special forces entered the compound, he blew a hole in the side of the door, the number of helicopters that were used, how long it took them, how low and fast they flew, all these details, you know, what the u.s. knew about the compound before going in to send signals to adversaries and even allies who like to spy on us about what

sorts of technologies we have and intelligence-gathering capabilities. so, you know, the overall takeaway was twofold. one is this has been a thing with this president since he came into office. we've talked to people who said they would have to be like, should we put that in the briefing? what if he blurts it out? do we really want to do that? separately on the back end of this, there is just concern that when the president puts forward details like this that the intelligence community and military officials would rather not have out, the concern is it makes things harder for the next raid, for other operations, including -- you know, he mentioned that they had picked up a bunch of materials and a couple -- and took some prisoners and the concern there was they weren't ready to release that yet because you don't want that out there. what they said is you want to keep people from, other members of isis from knowing what the u.s. has while they're interrogating the people they

picked up. it's just an example of the president kind of relishing in these details, finding them fascinating and disclosing a lot of them because he thinks they're interesting. he also thinks things are overclassified and he's not alone in that, but there were also some things in his remarks that were concerning to intelligence officials. >> judy and i ended up exploiting 9/11 for 20 years. by the time this story is done, president trump will have ridden up on a horse himself, personally strangled baghdadi and take all the credit. >> it was a pleasure having you. we're going to take a break. we'll be right back. we're going to take a break. we'll be right back. science is a process. it takes time, dedication. it's a journey. we're constantly asking ourselves, 'how can we do things better and better?' what we make has to work. we strive to protect you.

at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions that make people's lives better. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan

isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too.

i really mean it when i say i could talk to these friends for another hour. my thanks to all of them, and mostly to you for watching. chuck todd with "mtp daily" starts now. welcome to tuesday. it is "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington where another round of potential bombshell testimony as the president and his allies once again struggle to defend him as democrats unveil their official road map for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. this afternoon the house laid out a resolution that will