we're going to take you right into that pentagon briefing on the deadly raid that killed the leader of isis with general frank mckenzie. >> began firing on u.s. aircraft participating in the assault. these individuals who we don't assess were affiliated with baghdadi but nonetheless

demonstrated hostile intent toward u.s. forces. let's run the next video, please. these fighters opened fire on our aircraft and what you see in the video is the actual response. with the assault force surrounding the compound, we repeatedly urged those inside to come out peacefully. let's go to the next video, please. so this is a video of the assault force actually closing up to the compound. those who came out of the building were checked for weapons and explosives and moved away from the immediate area.

u.s. forces detained and later released the non-combatants. the group was treated humanely at all times and included 11 children. i want to make it clear that despite the violent nature of the raid and the -- and the high-profile nature of this assault, every effort was made to avoid civilian casualties and to protect the children that we suspected would be at the compound. five isis members inside the compound presented a threat to the force. they did not respond to commands in arabic to surrender and they continued to threaten the force. they were then engaged by the raid force and killed. there were four women and one man. after this engagement and once established inside the compound, u.s. forces discovered baghdadi hiding in a tunnel. when captured at the hands of u.s. forces was imminent, baghdadi detonated a bomb he wore killing himself and two young children that were with him. the number two is a change. we originally thought there were three children with him and this is the number we originally reported up the chain of

command. we now know the number to be two based on subsequent debriefing. a total of six isis members died on the objective. four were women and there were two men, including baghdadi. this is in addition -- in addition to the two children killed by baghdadi as he blew himself up. let me emphasize again that 11 children were protected by the assault force and two men on the objective were detained by the assault force and they were extracted with the force. after baghdadi's murder/suicide, our assault force cleared significant debris from the tunnel and secured baghdadi's remains for dna identity confirmation which were flown with the assault force back to the staging base. following collection of samples for formal dna analysis, baghdadi's remains were buried at sea in accordance with the law of armed conflict within 24 hours of his death. while the assault force was securing remains, they also secured whatever documentation and electronics we could find,

which was substantial. the assault force then left the compound and returned to their helicopters with the two detainees that i've already mentioned. after our forces were safely off the objective, u.s. forces employed precision standoff munitions to destroy the compound and its comments -- and its contents. pardon me. let's go to the next video, please. so what you'll observe are u.s. standoff munitions striking the compound. for those of you that may have seen before and after pictures of the compound, it looks pretty much like a parking lot with large potholes right now. the operation was exquisitely planned and executed. it demonstrates the united states' global reach and our unwavering commitment to destroy isis, bring its leaders to justice, and to protect america and others from people like baghdadi. the mission was a difficult, complex, and precise raid that

was executed with the highest level of professionalism and in the finest tradition of the u.s. military. since there is a significant interest in military working dogs, i wanted to provide a little background information on this fine canine. next photo, please. and actually, let's go back a moment. before i actually go to the dog, i would just like to show you the before and after pictures of the raid compound. you can see the way it looked before. and you can see the way it looks -- the way it looked after. so it's pretty clear that the success of the standoff munitions that we employed ensured that it would not be a shrine or otherwise memorable in any way. it's just another piece of ground. so let's go to the dog picture. u.s. special operation command military working dogs are critical members of our forces. these animals protect u.s. forces, save civilian lives, separate combatants from noncombatants and immobilize individuals who express hostile intent. this dog is a four-year veteran of the socon canine program and

has been a member of approximately 50 combat missions. he was injured by exposed live electrical cables in the tunnel after baghdadi detonated his vest. i will also note he has been returned to duty. finally, i would like to address the dna analysis that was conducted to confirm baghdadi's identity. the final slide, please. as you can see, the defense intelligence agency conducted the analysis and compared dna from the remains taken from the compound with an on-file sample taken when baghdadi was at camp buca prison in iraq in 2004. the analysis showed a direct match between the samples and produced a level of certainty that remains belong to baghdadi of 1 in 104 sep till yon, which is certainly beyond a shadow of a doubt. in closing, i would like to acknowledge that despite baghdadi's death, we will not forget the victims of the atrocities he directed and inspired since 2014. u.s. central command remains focused on the enduring defeat of isis and will remain vigilant

against all terrorist organizations in the region who threaten the united states, our partners, and our allies. i'd like to express my sincere appreciation for the professionalism of the men and women who made this operation a success. this was a true interagency effort so i commend our partners across the u.s. government. the individuals who planned and conduct this mission are quite professionals. focused on their mission above glory or recognition. committed people did hard, risky work and they did it well. i have a few minutes to answer questions. >> general mckenzie, with the death of baghdadi, can you just give us a sense of what the u.s. counter-isis fight is going to look like? seeing leaders start to emerge and just related, the troops are now moving into darazor, can you tell us how they are going to supplement that counter-isis mission and explain about how they're going to be protecting

the oil? >> sure. absolutely. let's -- let's start with -- with isis. isis is first and last in ideology. so we're under no illusions that it's going to go away just because we killed baghdadi. it will remain. suspected the highest levels, will be a little disrupted. it will take them some time to reestablish someone to lead the organization. and during that period of time, their actions may be a little bit disjointed. they will be dangerous. we suspect they will try some form of retribution attack and will -- and we are postured and prepared to -- and we're postured and prepared for that. but -- but we should recognize that, again, since it's an ideology, you're never going to be able to completely stamp it out. and, in fact, our definition of long-term success against isis and another entities like isis is not the complete absence of that ideology but rather its existence at a level where local security forces, wherever in the world it exists, can deal with it. there's no international connective tissue. there's no ability to attack our homeland and local forces perhaps with training and some

assistance, perhaps without those things, is going to be able to suppress those entities as they go forward. we don't see a bloodless future because, unfortunately, this ideology is going to be out there. but we think there's a way to get to a point where it's going to be less and less effective over time. so the second part of your question was about darazar. what we want to do is ensure that isis is not able to regain possession of any of the oil fields that would allow them to gain income going forward. so that's -- we've got forces at darazar. we have brought in some reinforcements there. we'll await further decisions by the u.s. government about how that plan is going to look in the long-term. and i wouldn't want to get ahead of secretary of defense in describing that. but as of right now, we have secured the oil fields generally east of the yeuphrates river. for those of you that follow the details on the ground. >> general, could you confirm that baghdadi, his final moments, the president said that he was whimpering and crying in his final moments. and also, could you give us any

better sense, you talked about substantial electronics recovered from the site. >> let me start with the second part. no, i can't tell you anything about what we took off the site. you'll appreciate that. we're going to explore that and expect it to help uses as we go forward. about baghdadi's last moments, i can tell you this. he crawled into a hole with two small children and blew himself up while his people stayed on the ground. that would be just my empirical observation of what he did. i'm not able to confirm anything else about his last seconds. i just can't confirm that one way or another. >> all right. >> sir, were there reinforcements? did any other isis personnel try to approach that position and was there fire that was exchanged? there's footage of a white van that was riddled with bullets that was right next to the scene. >> sure. so there were no other isis forces in the area. we are completely confident of that. he had been up there for an extended period of time hiding.

there were other militant groups in the area that probably did not know he was there. once they saw the helicopters land and begin to operate, they began to flow toward it. so -- but they were not flowing to reinforce him. they were flowing toward what they thought was perhaps a turret military operation, perhaps a russian military operation, perhaps an american military operation. they didn't know. so the white van you talk about was one of the vehicles that displayed hostile intent and was destroyed. in addition to the video i just shared with you. >> do you know how many casualty? >> you know, we don't. out there, it's going to be hard to know. we use the figure of about 10 to 15 but we really don't know for sure and i don't know that we're ever going to know that because we're not going to go back out there and count. >> sir, you mentioned that you staged from within syria. was there anything about the changes on the ground in the last two to three weeks with the u.s. pulling back forces with turk

turkey coming across that caused you to change the timing of this operation? >> jennifer, absolutely not. we -- we chose the time based on a variety of factors. weather certainty. lunar data. a variety of things like that. and while it might've been convenient to use bases there, the united states military has the capability to go almost anywhere and support ourselves even at great distances. so that was not a limiting factor. we -- we struck because the time was about right to do it then given the totality of the intelligence and the other situation. and the other factors that would affect the raid force going in and coming out. >> just a general. just a couple quick clarifications. so you said that there were i think six individuals killed on site. four women and two men, is that right? >> that's correct. >> did any of those individuals fire at the american forces as they were entering the compound? and also, is there any other information you can give us about how the tunnel was detected? how far underground baghdadi was? and do you know the rough ages of the children that he took down there with him?

>> so i would tell you we believe that the ages of both children he took down there with him are under 12 years old. but that's about all i can tell you about that. i can tell you that -- that we believe baghdadi actually may have fired from his hole in his last moments-l. the other people that were engaged on the objective were behaving in a threatening manner with suicide vests. that causes you to make decisions particularly when they don't respond to arabic language, commands to stop, warning shots. you know, our special operators are so very good at. missy. >> and how was the tunnel detected? was it open? >> so we -- so as we looked at it in -- in -- you know, as you would expect, we had an opportunity to study this pretty carefully. we came to the conclusion we should expect possibly a tunnel feature there. so that was the first thing that we took a look at. and then the interrogation of people on the objective allowed us to gain a better appreciation of where it might be. and then as you know, we just have a variety of things that i can't go into. one of them being the working

dogs that are very good at scenting humans and going after them when they're not immediately obvious. so that's sort of how we came to that conclusion. the key thing is we actually established physical security around the compound, got the non-combatants off, and that gave us a little bit of time to work the problem. pardon me. you're always worried in a situation like that, that the house might be rigged. so you got to pay attention to that. there are a variety of things that the raid force commander has to balance on the ground. and i think they did a remarkable job of doing that. >> all right. so i've just been given notice that the white house is going to start in shortly. so we're going to do a couple more questions and out of respect for -- we're going to cut it short. ryan. >> can you talk about any support that sdf provided to this operation? >> so, yes, i can. and so as you know, we maintain and continue to maintain linkages to the sdf. some of their early intelligence was very helpful to us in beginning to shape this problem. so i would say they were part of it. they did not participate in this raid. this was a u.s.-only operation.

there were no other nationality that participated in it. >> all right. >> in the case of osama bin laden, u.s. forces found that the house in al badabad had no internet, no cell service. you mentioned recovering electronic equipment from al-baghdadi's place. was he using the internet? had they been -- had they been on lockdown? or was there -- >> sure. good question. i think and we're still working this out -- i think you would find there's probably a messenger system that allows you to put something on a floppy or on a bit of electronics and have someone physically move it somewhere. that seems to be the cutout that most of these organizations seem to prefer. but i defer. i'm not going to go into much more detail on it than that. >> tom and then last question. >> general, you said two men were extracted with the special operations forces. were they both isis members? was one a supposed informant? >> so both members were extracted. both turned themselves over.

both are under detention now and i wouldn't go any further than that. >> what about the reward money? the 25 million? who's going to get that? >> i have no visibility on that. sorry. all right, guys. thank you very much-let sorry to have to cut it short but i hope you understand we had a hard deadline and, general mckenzie, thank you for coming in to speak with everybody. >> good evening there. i'm chuck todd here in washington where it's been another jam packed afternoon, as you can see right here. you've been listening to centcom commander general mckenzie where the defendant department officials just released some dramatic and graphic video footage of the raid that killed abu bakr al-baghdadi. general mckenzie also told reporters the president's decision to withdrawal did not affect the timing of the raid. took place saturday in northwest syria. claiming baghdadi died crying, whimpering, and screaming. that's just one of the breaking

news stories we're iffing this afternoon. we learned moments ago the president's former national security advisor john bolton has been invited to testify next week. that obviously would be a blockbuster. that news coming as the house finalizes procedures. and oh by the way, we're also learning about new revelations from the testimony with lieutenant colonel alex vindman. i'm going to talk all about that with house majority leader pelosi's number two. that comes up later in the show. yet, the nats have to do game seven but we begin the night with the breaking news we just heard from the pentagon. now on the phone from iraq is nbc national security and correspondent. also with me is john brennan who was in the situation room with obama during the mission that killed osama bin laden. and on the phone, also is also ned price, former senior director and spokesperson for the national security council under president obama. let me start with you, courtney.

the military released some of this footage, some of the footage of showing that the compound is no longer a shrine. but it was a limited amount of footage. why did they feel this was necessary? >> well, so, i mean for starters because president trump came out initially and gave a lot of details about this and then started promising some photos and videos or even teasing the idea we might get it. having to do something. you know, i think everyone was -- was hoping that we would see some sort of video from the canine or something. what we saw was still, you know, good video. interesting that the compound initially and then the air strike that destroyed it. which is very standard, the kind of video that we see out of the u.s. military in strikes and raids. but we didn't actually -- we never -- >> yep. we lost -- i lost courtney there

on the phone. sorry, courtney. i'm going to let you pause. let that signal recycle itself a bit. john brennan, i remember very vividly you coming into the white house briefing room i think it was the day after the bin laden announcement giving us some detail. help viewers here a little bit. they've seen the footage that we've seen. how much footage will we never see but still exists? >> well, chuck, first of all i think general mckenzie did an excellent job as far as describing factually what happened at the compound. and they released the footage with due consideration to protecting sources and methods and the various tactics that they use when prosecuting these assaults against compounds. so i think they tried to lean as far forward as possible. but at the same time, there is still isis members out there and the u.s. military operates in that area. and so i think they were very cautious, as they should be, about releasing anything that

might give the isis members clues about what to look for, for some type of future raid. so again, i think they probably went as far as they could and general mckenzie's description i think tried to fill out some of those gaps. >> all right. well, again, i want to go -- how -- i mean, it is -- to me, it's always remarkable how much footage we do have. so i guess i'm curious how much footage will we never see but the pentagon has? like, is there even -- you know, i think courtney's right. there was an expectation. probably some viewers think, oh, we're going to see footage of a gopro on the dog that chased down al-baghdadi. obviously, that isn't what we're going to see. but what kind of footage is there that we're not seeing that does exist? >> well, some really interesting footage, chuck, that you and the viewers are not going to be able to see that it's because the need to protect these capabilities. so there's a lot of things that happened during the bin laden raid that will never see the light of day. same thing is true here with the

abu bakr al-baghdadi raid. so there are things that happen on the ground up close and personal. so it's either to protect sources and methods. or with due consideration about not providing, you know, a very horrific scene that includes a lot of blood shed. that's suicide/murder by baghdadi, i'm sure that was awful. whether or not there's any footage of it, i don't know. but if there is, it's appropriate for the government not to release something like that. i think we have to try to, you know, make sure that we're not doing anything that is going to further provoke maybe the sensitivities in that region. >> let me go back to courtney who is in iraq. we got the connection recycled a bit and should be better. courtney, the pentagon seemed to confirm that they've extracted two people who have been detained. they wouldn't confirm whether one of them is the informant. they talked about children that were extracted. but where are they? are they in american custody?

or are they -- are they in the custody of -- of another group, another entity, kurds? where are the children that have been extracted? are they still in our custody? >> no. so according to a senior u.s. military official, they were turned over right away to some capable party is all we've been told. the way that i kind of took the way the explanation we got about it was that they turned them over to someone who was nearby. and that was it. they never took the children into any kind of custody. >> what does that mean? nearby? >> we -- we don't really know. i mean, it's -- you look at the photos of that compound, it doesn't look like there are any neighbors nearby. and, in fact, general mckenzie just now specifically said that -- that they don't believe -- remember, this is not an isis area where he was found in this part of the province. in fact, there's some competing groups. >> al qaeda, right?

yeah. yeah. >> exactly. >> sorry. >> but mckenzie said two very interesting things that other militant groups didn't know that baghdadi was there and that he'd been there an extended period of time. now, we'd been hearing that there was concern that he was maybe about to move and that was one thing that sort of gave them the incentive to have to go. but they knew the layout of this particular compound. it's clear general mckenzie said they knew that there were children there as well. so they had a good situational awareness of this. and i think that was one of the reasons, including, you know, some of the basic things like -- i mean, look, i'm near baghdad right now and we are -- there's -- there's weather particularly this time of year, it's been raining and low cloud cover and whatnot. they need to factor those kind of things in before they do a risky mission like this. and it sounds like one of the incentives they had was baghdadi had been there an extended period of time and they were concerned that he might leave. >> ned price, one of the things that the general mckenzie also said is, look, as isis tries to reform itself and, you know,

figure out who its next leader is, we know the president said they already essentially got the number two because he may have been with al-baghdadi at the time. walk me through how -- how is it that we track this stuff with isis? you know, how well-identified is the government -- how much have we identified enough members of isis that we have an idea of the various people that could end up being leaders of this idealogically driven group? >> well, chuck, our nation's top counter terrorism was on the hill today testifying about this. he said the death of al-baghdadi certainly was a blow to isis but he described isis as having a deep bench even with its leader and its number two now deceased in recent days. look. the united states government and clearly i'm not privy to its latest classified assessments but we have a deep reservoir of knowledge of these top terrorist groups. the challenge, however, chuck, is that in general mckenzie i

think referenced this quite well is that isis these days is just about -- it's as much about an ideology as it is a group. and so i think we have to think about it in terms of more broadly than who is at the helm. who director of external planning is. who its director for various sub components is. and we have to think about isis for the threat its ideology poses and the potential it has to radicalize those who don't even come into contact with it. and, frankly, that is the biggest threat we face here in the united states. is not individuals who have trained with isis in places like syria and iraq. but individuals who may have found a sermon online. who may have been delivered audio tapes. who never had contact but yet have been inspired by the group's leaders, by the group's visions, by the group's poisonous propaganda to undertake attacks in the united states, in western europe, in other allied countries.

>> john brennan, look, baghdadi was on the run. he was trying to move. that tells us something that he was -- that -- that he didn't feel safe. so what does that tell you that the fact that he was having to essentially do what bin laden was doing when you guys got him, which is try to keep hiding and hope that at some point he can find refuge. >> well, it shows the results of what basically has been a five-year effort on the part of the united states and its coalition partners, as well as the syrian kurds. as far as dismantling isis and rooting it out from those traditional areas that it controlled. and so it was pointed out before he was found in idlib province and that is not an isis stronghold. it was in fact the stronghold of -- which is al qaeda in syria. but i think he felt most secure there because it is outside of the area of either syrian control or syrian kurdish

control or u.s. forces' presence. so he was hiding there. i think as general mckenzie said, united states military has tremendous reach and tremendous capabilities and combined with intelligence that we're able to locate where he was, they were able to, you know, put the people on that target and be able to eliminate the leader of isis. and it is going to be disruptive and especially then the number two as well. yes, they have other leaders and other commanders and whatever on the ground there. but this is a blow that i think is going to hurt isis and, you know, good on the u.s. military and u.s. intelligence for carrying this out. >> before i let everybody go, john brennan, general mckenzie, essentially said, look, there's going to be some sort of retaliation. now, it may not be effective and we may -- what -- what do you fear in retaliation? what is -- what is the most likely retaliation look like that -- that would keep you up? >> well, that's the thing ned mentioned. you know, isis has been able to use that digital environment to

be able to reach out across the oceans and across countries. and try to encourage people to carry out attacks. they did it quite extensively in europe. and so, you know, will that happen? will somebody carry out some type of, you know, lone actor attack in the name of vengeance for baghdadi? they might do it. but they really have been hurt on the ground. that pressure continues. i'm hoping the u.s. decision to pull out is not going to allow them to regenerate. but i could see them trying to do something. but it also shows that isis has not been 100% destroyed, as some individuals allege. this is going to be, you know, a multi-year effort and it's going to continue. we're never going to completely destroy that ideology and the people who adhere to it so we have to maintain that vigilance, as well as pressure with our partners. particularly, our partners in the area. >> john brennan. former cia director and -- and nbc national security analyst. thank you. ned price, also former national security council staffer, as well as a national security analyst for us. and courtney cuby on the ground

in iraq, our pentagon correspondent. thank you all. up ahead, action on impeachment continued today ahead of tomorrow's vote in the full house. we're going to check in for the latest in the capitol. that's next. chevy's the only brand... to earn j.d. power dependability awards... across cars... trucks... and suvs. four years in a row. since more than 32,000 real people... just like me. and me. and me. took the survey that decided these awards. it was only right that you hear the good news from real people... like us. i'm daniel. i'm casey. i'm julio. only chevy has earned j.d. power dependability awards across cars, trucks and suvs. four years in a row. walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules. that's ensure max protein, for outback.

with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. gimme two minutes. eligible for medicare. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask...

for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor,

who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we got multiple new developments today in the house impeachment inquiry. congress is getting ready to vote on what the democrats are calling the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. two more top officials testified today and three more depositions have been added to the calendar. nsc counsel jonnizen berg, his deputy michael ellis, and here's the big one. former national security advisor john bolton are scheduled to speak with congressional investigators next week. it will be interesting to see if john bolton -- with the latest

from capitol hill. my nbc news colleague jeff bennett. so, jeff, we know they're preparing for the -- the rules vote today and i'm going to have a conversation with stenyhoyer about that. what did we learn today that adds to the story? >> oh, man, chuck, where to begin? well, the two state department career officials testified here back to back. you had katherine croft. she told house investigators that she participated in a meeting last summer where white house budget office staffer told her that mick mulvaney put an informal hold on military aid to ukraine. and it was her understanding, croft's understanding, that president trump was the one who

requested it. we also heard or house investigators rather heard from christopher anderson. he was a special advisor to the former special envoy to ukraine kurt volker. he testified that john bolton told him to be cautious about rudy giuliani. that in bolton's view, rudy giuliani was an obstacle as it related to having the u.s. engage appropriately with ukraine. and as you mentioned, john bolton himself is the big get. there are a lot of known -- a lot of known unknowns about his testimony, to include whether or not he will appear. his long time -- >> i was just going to say that's the bigger -- that's the bigger question. we know obviously he wants to testify. the question is, does he feel like he has the legal protection to do it? >> and we won't know until tomorrow around 3:00 because that's when a federal judge is set to take up the case that charles kupperman, charles kupperman was the deputy to john bolton, a long-time friend and associate of his. both men share the same attorney and kupperman's argument is because the white house tried to

block his testimony, he did not want to be an independent arbiter of this dispute between the executive and legislative branches. so his attorney filed a complaint and said, let's let this judge sort it out. because this case is tied to the overall impeachment inquiry, it was expedited. it's set for tomorrow at 3:00. depending on that ruling, i think will tell us a lot about whether or not bolton appears. bolton, of course, has keen insight to every aspect of the case that democrats are building. he also has the most colorful commentary about this entire ukrainian gambit, as made evident through testimony. likening this ukraine pressure campaign to some back-alley drug deal, chuck. that's what he told fiona hill. that's what fiona hill testified. >> it is. just so you know, michael mcfall said that is -- it is diplo speak for side deals for what it's worth. that the drug deal -- the language of calling it a drug deal is always you'euphanism th

apparently multiple folks have used over the years to talk about side deals that aren't a part of what it is that you're negotiating. so in fairness -- >> well, i learned something new today. i had no idea. >> yeah, exactly. i think everybody's jumped on the bolton description. it is sort of colloquialism. you know, we have it in our news business. if people heard half the nicknames we have for various things we do in the news business, they'd be like what the heck are you guys talking about? so just for viewers, they should know that i think that's just a colloquialism of sorts for the diplomats. >> well, thanks for clearing that up. also, did refer to rudy giuliani as a hand degree nad. i don't kn grenade. so he has a lot to tell house investigators. big question mark as to whether or not he'll even show up, chuck. >> that's for sure but it does sound like he'd like to. and that in itself is obviously a very important development. jeff bennett on capitol hill. thank you very much. >> yeah. good to see you, man. >> and joining me now is the house majority leader sten

stenny hoyer. good to see you, sir. >> chuck, good to be with you as always. >> let me start with getting you to react to something jerry connely told me yesterday. let me just play the sound for you and get you to respond. it's about toefrm it's about tomorrow's vote. take a listen. >> what changed, congressman? why a vote now on thursday? >> i don't really know what's changed because i certainly would agree that the house can set its own terms for proceeding with an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. the resolution that we will be voting on is not a simple resolution to begin or validate a formal inquiry. it is a resolution that kind of codifies the process going forward. >> so congressman hoyer, i played that a little bit. he seemed -- there are some members. he's not alone he voiced it that not everybody's convinced you need this vote tomorrow. make the case. >> no, i think they -- they're

correct we don't need the vote tomorrow. the court has indicated that we can proceed, as we have been proceeding. however, what jerry didn't mention is we are contemplating changing from what is essentially the investigatory phase of this matter into the open hearing public hearing phase of the consideration of whether or not there is evidence to believe that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. and in that public hearing, we want to make sure that everybody understands this is going to be due process. this is going to be fair. it's not going to be like the trial in the senate. but it will be a forum in which the president is given the opportunity to call witnesses, to cross-examine, to have his representatives present. and for the president himself to be present.

so this is -- jerry's right in the fact that this is a procedural matter. not necessary to carry out our constitutional duties but we think appropriate. and i would be surprised, and i am surprised, that the republicans say they're not going to vote for a resolution. that, in effect, gives them what they asked for. while it still continues to have obviously as the republicans had the protections on subpoenas so that we can't have filibuster by subpoena. >> what -- what are you -- a lot of people are going to scrutinize the vote count and there's going to be this -- you know, the defection watch. who is going to have more defections? the republican side? or the democratic side on this vote? are you concerned about the perception that maybe more democrats will not vote for this than republicans who do? >> oh, i don't -- i'm not concerned about that. but i don't know how many republicans will vote for this.

as i said, chuck, it'll be ironic that a resolution that gives to the president the ability to participate in the hearings and have a due process consideration is something that the republicans have been demanding which we did not think and the court confirmed. nor do we think it's necessary now but we think it is appropriate. there's a difference. whether we need to do it or we're doing it because we want to make sure that the public knows we intend to be fair. >> so it doesn't sound like you expect to lose a single democrat. i mean, if you're surprised you a are' not winning over republicans, then how on earth are you going to lose a single democrat on this vote? tad facetious but -- >> no, i understand that. and jim clyburn and i have talked and i don't know whether we're going to get every democrat. >> what do you say to the holdouts? what's the case to somebody that says this, congressman, and i

know a few house members are making this case quietly. which is, look, i got a lot of concern about this. my constituents have a lot of concern about this but my constituents are also well aware that 2020 is around the corner. what's your case to them? >> we're going to proceed and do our constitutional duty. whatever -- wherever the chips may fall. that is our responsibility. that's our oath of office. to defend and protect the constitution of the united states of america. we're going to do that. but what i would say to those members is, look, we are going to proceed. that's our duty to proceed. but we're also going to allow the president of the united states to have witnesses and try to make his case. we think that's fair. so that i don't think there's a reason for a member, for instance, not to be able to go back to the district and say, look, on process, the republicans have been talking

about fairness. in the investigatory phase, we don't believe that in due process under our constitution, under our laws, that the defendant or the alleged defendant or prospective defendant has a right to appear before the grand jury. they didn't appear -- the clinton administration didn't appear before starr. et cetera. et cetera. et cetera. as a result, i think everybody can go back on our side of the aisle and say, particularly if you're in a district that is supportive of trump, and say to them, yes, i voted to give mr. trump the ability to come in and state his case. i think that's not a hard argument to make. >> you've been around in this town a long time. do you need more information to decide whether to vote on an article of impeachment of this president or not? >> chuck, i'm going to wait until all the evidence is in. it's not all in yet. clearly, we wouldn't be proceeding i think this far if we didn't think the evidence was substantial. and -- >> is there a scenario?

yeah. >> is there -- is there a ske nar wr nar yoe what? >> is there a scenario where you wouldn't follow the articles? >> i think there would be such a scenario. frankly, i think the evidence as so many people have observed is pretty overwhelming and it gets more overwhelming almost every day. but all the evidence is not in. mr. schiff is still going to have some additional witnesses. the other committee's going to report. and the judiciary committee will have to make recommendations. now, you know, i think the public sees this as proceeding and i think the public, as you have seen in the polls, has had a pretty significant shift to the fact of certainly in favor of the inquiry. thinking that there was enough cause there to look into this matter closely. and very frankly, i think as every day goes by and evidence mounts, i think the public becomes probably more convinced that something was not right here.

>> do you -- do you believe that there is a point where the election should come before this? i'm not saying -- just identify when that is -- but do you think there is a point, you know, maybe it's in three months, maybe it's in five months but where it becomes, you know what, let november happen. >> well, you know, some -- when the mueller report came out, of course, one of the comments that was attributed to me and i said there's an election coming up in 15 or 16 months. that is true. however, that was before the july 25th telephone call and all the matters that happened before and after that call. and so i think that members feel, and you saw those seven members who have served in the armed forces, served as u.s. attorneys, have served in some form where they pledged an oath to defend the constitution, felt constrained to say the time has come where we need to look at this and we need to do our duty

irrespective of politics or irrespective of the ramifications. and i think that's frankly where most of our members are today. and i would hope most of the republicans are there, as well. i -- i urged in colloquy with mr. scalis last week, look, try to think about these facts not as the fact that you have an incumbent republican or incumbent democratic president but as on the facts, what you would decide irrespective of the party of the president. it's hard to do that, i know. >> yep. >> but i would urge us all to do that. >> yeah. justice is supposed to be blind. anyway -- >> actually, chuck, in -- in the old supreme court, justice is not blind and -- and the -- she doesn't have a blindfold on and the point being there, no justice ought to see the facts and the equities and act accordingly. >> okay.

fair enough. stenny hoyer, house majority leader. much appreciate it. thanks for coming on and sharing your news. >> thanks a lot, chuck. >> well, we got a lot to unpack there and let me just tell you there's some hill veterans here that can't wait to do it. up next, what if everything we think we know about impeachment is wrong? k kwenow about impeac is wrong severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ asbut when your team is always dealing with device setups, app updates, and support calls... you can never seem to get anywhere. that's why dell technologies created unified workspace,

powered by vmware. ♪ a revolutionary solution that lets you deploy, manage, support and secure all your devices from the cloud. so you can stop going in circles, and start moving forward. annoepidemic fueled by juul use with their kid-friendly flavors. san francisco voters stopped the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. but then juul, backed by big tobacco, wrote prop c to weaken e-cigarette protections. the san francisco chronicle reports prop c is an audacious overreach, threatening to overturn the ban on flavored products approved by voters. prop c means more kids vaping. that's a dangerous idea. vote no on juul. no on big tobacco. no on prop c.

welcome back. every new detail we've learned in the first month of this investigation and every flailing attempt from republicans to distractflailing attempt for the republicans is that the president will be impeached in the house and acquitted in the senate. what in the conventional wisdom is wrong? as so often seems the case these days, especially when all of washington is so convinced of one outcome. what if the democrats decide to not move forward in the articles of aimpeachment or enough senate republicans hit their breaking point or mike pence's poll ratings surge in the middle of

february. you get my point. joining me is co-author of the playbook fuse letter,. susan page, peek allege steele, former adviser, executive vice president, center for american progress. welcome all. susan page. is tomorrow a big deal or not? >> this vote, i guess it's really not a big deal. >> we apparently, sten my hoyer says. >> i try to figure out what to make of that. >> i think we saw, displayed the divisions that are going on behind closed doors with house democrats about whether this was the smart thing to do. truly nancy pelosi's call. she thinks she must think it's the right thing to do. but sten my hoyer did not look enthusiastic about explaining the reasons why it was the smart thing to do. of course, he's a more moderate democrat. and it is moderate democrats who could find themselves in a difficult situation after casting a vote in favor of this impeachment inquiry. >> jake. you know how this works behind

the scenes. sten my's comments, how are they going to play tonight? >> probably not too well. the caucus that is preparing to take a vote that they've just pushed off a couple weeks ago, they said they wouldn't take a vote on impeachment. so you have a caucus that's getting ready to basically cast a vote that will be positioned by republicans in a campaign year as approving the entire impeachment process and everything there within. and for sten my hoyer to go on tv just 12 hours before the vote or 24 hours before the vote and say it's not necessary, probably won't play that well and it will be a mixed messaging. by the way, mixed messaging that they've struggled with all week and that has not allowed them to take advantage of could be a good week for them. >> here's what i don't understand, democrat are, seem afraid of this vote i could argue the republicans should be just as afraid of this vote. nobody know what is it will look like in six months or a year. but the democrats are, at least they are acting awfully in a defensive crouch, i thought, it came across that way?

>> i can't explain what we just saw, so i'll not going to try to. look, when you were arguing about processes, you can't argue the substance. that's what republicans have been dealing with. it seems like democrats took a little step in that direction today. but there is one thing i do know that nancy pelosi does not call a vote unless she knows she has the votes for it. and nancy i trust she knows what she's doing. i think the republican versus more 20 worry about this vote than the democrats do. >> what do you make of this and could you -- republicans here want to get a little giddy messing around with that but they need to be careful here in how they hand him this, no? >> no one knows how this will turn out. one, sten my hoyer is the voice of relatively moderate democrats and their caucus and their leadership. this is potentially a bad vote for the 30 house represents rengt districts that donald trump won in 2016. half of them in districts donald trump won pretty big. this could be a very, very bad

vote for her. >> tawnya horn, oklahoma city, oklahoma five. it's a plus 15, jake, am i right about that? in a trump district. she has been a public skeptic of this. >> also reminder, the congressional leadership makes decision slowly. have you to have consultation, discussions, bring people along. this could have been a smart vote three weeks ago when they were opening this inquiry. it's not a smart vote tomorrow. i think that's why they are doing it and getting out of town for ten days. >> as you are speaking we put breaking news below your face, that is tim morrison is supposed to testify tomorrow is leaving the nfc, making it a lot easier i believe to testify. >> isn't that interesting? it has been interesting who has chosen to step forward and testify in defines of their boss, the president and leaving the nsc, that a way for him to be able to testify without the president being able to call him

back? maybe. >> and that's something we don't fully know. i will say this, that's why i don't think, the democrats are falling into this process trap every day they get testimony that's just overwhelming on the substance and yet they can't figure out how to down into indicate this. >> one must say that this is a success, this is a win for republicans who dragged them into the process trap. >> got them into this vote. >> for really they sort of again they stuck by -- gerry connolly, i don't know where we are having this vote. >> you could have done it a a small way and democrats put out this letter and trumpeted the impeachment vote as a big deal because republicans have made three or four weeks making a process vote. >> i think it's a john bolton. i think -- i don't think we have fully comprehended this. >> yeah. no that is a huge deal. are you right. every day there is more damming testimony that is coming out. once this moves into the public phase, i think those democrats who are in trump 1 districts.

>> you might not fully agree we will wait for that course case. we know he has been trumpeted. >> your point about conventionalism, conventionalism died in 2016, can we say that right now? we don't know what's going to happen. i germany tee you poll numbers will move in all districts once we start the public phase of this. >> i think that's a great point. this has been a tough time for democrats because they're getting this great testimony but behind closed doors, to have alexander vindman testify before the tv cameras could be a move that helps solve the democrat's problem on this. >> but it doesn't make a difference among republicans unless it starts moving that 35% trump base. the guys who will be primary voters next year as long as they remain convinced that trump is infallable, i don't know if the conviction math changes. >> the odd thing is smoeft people agree on the set of information that is in front of us. most people agree, stipulate there was a phone call, know whatagreed with

the general outlines of how democrats described the call. the only ambiguity is democrats believe this is the end of the world. republicans think this is how business is done and trump did nothing wrong. >> let's be realistic. the numbers move in independents. at some point republican versus to come one some sort of rhetorical half measure, athlete martha mcsally gains it. the president won't allow for it. what do you do? michael steele, it's your party. >> there is a safe place here. the safe place is the president did something wrong but it didn't rise to the level that he should be removed from an office less than a year before the voters vote. that's a defensible process. >> would donald trump let you say that, congressman steel? >> you fight on the substance and you can't. every republican elected official right now is on a mile high swinging bridge and donald trump is taking an axe to the

ropes. >> i have this theory that if republicans do start going down that messaging hole, which i think is about all they have left, i think lindsay will be the guy that leads that charge. there will be a bunch of democrats, not a majority. we know who they are. maybe it's kyrsten sinema, joe manchin, doug jones, it's those sitting around, you know what, it's a tough call. jay johnson, on this show on sunday, he was struggling with, ha, we're close to an election. wingers and that's not good for people that say not now. >> it's tough, it's not tough in a foreign election. if that's not a bright line, that argument worked about bill clinton talking about a relationship with a sitting intern. we're talking about a sitting president asking sa foreign government to interfere in our

election. >> and clinton apologized. >> i don't think that nuance tape takes precedent unless the president said i made mistakes, i'm sorry. here's why. >> i have been learning on the job, i'm still learning on the job. >> is there any situation where president trump has done that? >> as long as he doesn't go after them for doing it. it's okay. he doesn't have to agree, say it, himself, he has to hold back the tweets more. >> is there an example where ehe's chosen to be restrained within they are talking about him that he didn't like. >> there are republican senators over the brake said he's making a collective argument he wants to be defend on the substance. he's hoping they blow up the guys that did it. >> he's hoping the raleigh news and observer doesn't make it to the oval office. >> wouldn't that be shirts and skips, drafts move to impeach, the message is both parties are doing their own thing and it doesn't carry the weight that either one reallyments and i think that becomes a message for

all of it broadly speaking. >> breaks, guys, thanks, one of those guys we had to roll with different events. a lot happening in washington these days. that's for sure. the biggest, most important thing happening in walk, though, takes place in houston. let's go max! c'mon, man. we will be back with more "meet the press daily." hopefully we are celebrating a world championship in the nation's capitol. thank you, mr. scherzer, it's all on you, brother. good evening, ari melber is up next. >> we are following the big developments in the impeachment investigation. congress preparing for tomorrow's first ever floor vote on impeachment issues. democrats calling a key witness from inside trump's inner circle. later tonight, testimony on a trump staffer. all about the ukraine call and something special we have been working on. we will go inside these new rules for impeaching trump. that's my breakdown later tonight. we begin now with breaking news