another hour but we're out of time. my thanks to steve schmidt, most of all, thanks to you for watching. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts right now. welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd here in a big curly w washington. lchl exactly a year after the presidential election, today's been another hectic day in the nation's capital from capitol hill to the courts to the white house. house backed an impeachment inquiry into the president and historic symbolic action that moves us one step closer to public hearings. and behind closed doors, it was another bomb shell day as the national security council top russia expert tim morrison

confirmed much of the substance of the damning testimony by the administration's top diplomat to ukraine, bill taylor, what he testified to is that military aid was contingent on investigations into the president's political rivals. this is according to a review of morrison's opening statement. now, morrison also testified that he was warned about rudy giuliani and eu ambassador gordon sondland's efforts to get ukraine's president to open investigations into hunter biden's company burisma. not his company. the company that he was on the board of. in addition to those developments, we have proceedings in two potentially game-changing court cases today that could determine whether deputy national security advisor charles kupperman and former white house counsel don mcgahn will be forced to testify under subpoena before congress. and what happens in kupperman's hearing could have big implications on whether the former national security advisor john bolton ends up testifying under subpoena before congress, as well.

because kupperman shares an attorney with bolton and bolton has been invited into the impeachment inquiry next week and he has simply said he is not going to come voluntarily. he wants the subpoena. we'll get to all that in a moment. all of this is happening after the house took its first vote on impeachment proceeds approving a resolution to guide the next steps of the process. but vote fell very much along party lines. two democrats broke with their party. one republican had already broken with his party to the point where he left the party. justin amash voted with the democrats. okay. that's the definition, folks, of party line. legally, doesn't change much of anything. but symbolically, lawmakers are drawing their lines in the sand and at least for now, today's vote makes clear that washington is still extraordinarily divided on this issue. and that republicent and democrats are retreating to their corners. a reporting team has been all over the action today. garrett haake is on the hill. kelly o'donnell at the white house. let's start on the hill where we

have testimony taking place with mr. morrison there. so, garrett, we've learned a little something. but it's interesting, some of the republicans in there have come out and they believe mr. morrison has been helpful to the president. >> yeah, that's true. chuck, it feels like that was about six weeks ago there's been so much going on capitol hill today. morrison's testimony, as you pointed out in the open, was largely confirmtory for what bill taylor has said about the arm or the aid for investigations part of this. but what morrison also told the committees was that he listened to that phone call and he didn't hear anything that he thought was illegal. now, of course, that's not the bar for impeachment but it is something that republicans can hang their hats on here a little bit. and morrison also described based on the reporting of my colleague leanne caldwell, who's done such a good job with this story, not really following the burisma connection as it was happening in real time. he really underscores the two parallel tracks of foreign

policy that were going on within the white house. the official foreign policy of the u.s. government of which he was a member. and the secondary foreign policy of rudy giuliani and perhaps the president that he was not privy to at the time. and was putting together later. it also speaks to how this impeachment inquiry is just going to build and build and build. the vote today is such a key part of it. setting up public hearings. we've got another full week of depositions at least for next week. just the ones you've laid out with bolton scheduled to come if he does show up on next thursday. so all of that will continue as these members are now on their way back to their districts tonight where they will have to continue to sell this. democratic members, in particular, having to continue to sell this back in their districts as something that the country needs to go through. >> i want to -- i want to pick up on that for a second. i -- the -- the thing that has surprised me the most about today's vote was how neither party really wanted to have -- there weren't many rank and file members that wanted to go to the

floor to make the case for why they were voting the way they were voting. it was almost they all hid behind their leadership on that. >> yeah. that's true. you know, leadership in the democratic side painted this as something that they were forced to do by this president. and if you think about it, nancy pelosi has been resisting the idea of trying to impeach this president for the entirety of his term in office. and so this -- democrats cast this as something that was forced upon them by history. that the president has brought them to this point and they had to make this vote. so for democratic members not to be rushing out to scream about how excited they were to be voting to impeach the president makes sense on that strategically. on the republican side, you saw some of the same. this desire to defend the president within a relatively narrow framework. but i think there is also some concern on the republican side that as you start to defend the president, you don't know where this is going, right? so much of the defense has been built on process up till this point. okay. now, we're making adjustments to the process.

we heard a little bit of that today with the language republicans have been using for a while but it seemed to be turned up in bits today about this is trying to invalidate the 2016 election. the degree which republicans can link this impeachment inquiry to opposition of the president going back years, i think you'll hear the names al green. that argument can make this feel distasteful for independent mind voters, democrats who are not sure about this. and i suspect we'll hear a lot more of that going forward from republicans. >> right. don't look at the substance. try to blur the lines with -- with -- >> it's just one big effort to get rid of this president. yep. >> the big blob on that front. i get that. kelly o'donnell. the white house today, i think they were hoping for more democratic defections. they didn't get it. this basically was the party line vote. republicans lost one. democrats lost two. that's not -- you don't get bragging rights on either side

for something on that one. and more importantly, it means the president's on the road to impeachment, which we know the white house isn't happy about. so i assume they're happy they didn't lose anybody besides amash but what can you tell us? >> well, there is a new development in just the last couple of moments and that is our colleague pete williams reports that a decision on whether charles kupperman will have to testify, again, he is the deputy to john bolton when they were here serving the president in the national security space. that won't come for at least a month. so that is according to peach reporting that there will be another hearing in december. so if we were expecting to have some quick resolution on some of the most high-profile names, we won't be getting it. >> let me ask you. kelly, let me pause you there. is the white house happy to have this stuff dragged out? or do they want to see this stuff resolved so they know what they're dealing with? >> in a larger way, they have been really arguing on their

actions for dragging it out. in part, because the closer it gets to what is exactly the election year 2020, the easier it is to fashion this as being purely political instead of an inherently political process because impeachment is, by definition, a political solution to a problem. and that is, in part, what the white house has expected. that the longer this drags out, much like in the russia investigation, as much as the president and his team were battered and bruised by that, they came out of it. and in many respects, they believe that there is a fatigue factor for impeachment and we'll have to see. would they like to have some clarity on who will be required to testify when you're talking about someone like don mcgahn who had been the president's white house counsel? i'm sure there's some anxiety to get a resolution on that. but the courts are in a separate track here and so that's going to take a little more time. but the president does have some ability to use his influence and

his relationships on republican members. so he was quick today to say there were no defections among the republican side. they had known justin amash had left the party earlier so they were looking at the broader piece of that. might they have thought there would be in those trump districts where democrats prevailed in 2018, that there might have been more peeling away? certainly, they would have liked that. before this moment, the president can only do so much. and working the phones and building relationships and offering his help in districts where he can be helpful, that's what he can use at this point to try to keep republicans in line. >> garrett haake, kelly o'donnell kicking us off with today's news events of the day. obviously, the single most important thing that happened today is the world series championship washington nationals. i'm going to get that in there anytime i can. kelly, i think it's impressive you decided to be a red head for the nationals. i really appreciate that. >> i know garrett's from texas. >> yeah, both of you.

that's right. thank you, both. all right. joining me now, two people who know a lot about both sides of this story from the legal perspective, as well as the national security perspective. ned price, msnbc contributor, former national security council spokesman. frankly, if he were there now, he'd probably be subpoenaed. >> glad i'm not. >> chuck rosenberg, msnbc contributor. former u.s. attorney. former fbi official and who knows you would be in the middle of either subpoenaing people or not if you were in the middle of it. >> subpoena him. >> the host of the oath podcast where he talks with former public officials about this pivotal moment in american history. all right. i want to start with this issue of kupperman. and this is a classic separation of powers question. you could be arguing the government's side of this or you can argue congress's side of this. what do you think is the white house's strongest argument from

preventing? >> first of all, i'm glad you framed it as a separation of powers issue. it's not a republican/democrat thing. it's the legislative and executive branch and the parties could have been flipped and in the exact same position. so i don't blame mr. kupperman or his lawyer for asking the courts to resolve it. i mean, the lawyer has said that kupperman, the deputy national security advisor, is indifferent. whatever the court tells him he must do, he will do. and that's frankly an incredibly logical position. so what's the white house's best argument? i think they have a reasonable argument, although it's fact dependent on executive privilege. it's a real thing. presidents from all parties and all administrations have asserted it in one form or the other. i think the notion that they have absolute immunity, meaning that the witness doesn't even have to show up -- >> scalpel. you need a legal scalpel here. it's like, okay, you can get executive privilege for here and

we'll carve out the territory, you know, rather than, you know, rather than just saying yes or no. >> i think that's probably where the court comes out that they say that absolute immunity is a made up thing. that a witness has to show up and that when the witness shows up, he or she can assert privilege on certain questions and certain responses. privilege is normally construed narrowly because the idea is you want the fact finder. whether it's the congress or the court or a jury to get as much information as possible. so this notion that i don't even have to go, that i don't have to show up in this body that wants my testimony, i don't think that flies, chuck. >> ned, first of all, did you guys ever get legal briefings when you were at nsc about what would fall under sort of executive privilege? what would -- what would be your legal requirement? i'm just curious, like, how are you -- how are national security council staffers briefed on their legal requirements? >> we certainly had ethics briefings and i think some

people might say too often but for a very good reason. when you serve in the white house and serve at that level of influence within our national politics, it's probably for the best. now, frankly, these issues of separation of powers and privilege, executive privilege and absolute immunity, this wasn't something that i became familiar with until the trump administration. frankly, because the obama administration, i am pleased to say, was scandal free. it is not like my colleagues were routinely dragged to congressional hearings to testify behind closed doors or dragged before courts. because this really is a creation of this administration. >> sure but there were some things, for instance, benghazi, i think they wanted to get some folks on the national security council to testify and you guys said no. >> of course. of course. but it's not like this was the -- this was the substance of our day. >> my point on that is it did fall under some executive privilege. >> even absolute immunity is something previous

administrations have claimed. it's not the currency. it is not the currency that it is in this administration that everything seems to revolve around scandals. >> all right. so much has happened today that we sort of got lost. there was a pretty interesting important story this morning in "the washington post" about -- about the idea that the transcript of the call that lieutenant colonel vindman was so concerned about it when he went to the -- mr. eisenburg. first of all, tell us about the other server. how often did you interact? >> i had no contact with the server and that's the acronym for the intelligence server. only those people in a directorate called the directorate for intelligence programs within the national security council have access to that server. they are the ones who ever access to it. they are the ones who oversee it. even when the national security advisor or even perhaps the president of the united states wanted to access a document from that server, they tended to be the ones who would print it off, take it to the oval office, take

it to the national security advisor's office. >> what do you make of that story? the -- the house intel is going to want to hear from mr. eisenbur. and i'm sitting here wondering how are they ever going to hear from him? he's counsel. not the definition of at least some form of attorney/client privilege with the executive branch here. >> well, first of all, his client is not the president. >> yeah, who is the client here? >> for a white house counsel or deputy white house counsel, the client is the office of the presidency, the institution as opposed to the individual. and that sounds like a distinction not only a lawyer could love but it's a really important distinction. you know -- >> it's one that this president doesn't understand. he doesn't -- does think his white house counsel is his lawyer. >> it's an important distinction. will they hear from him? i don't know. i mean, there are always exceptions to privileges. if you commit a fraud, if you commit a crime, you can't behhi

behind a privilege. privilege can be destroyed. taken away. >> do you think then his rationale for this is something he should have to testify to? >> well, so i would like to hear from him. one of the things we're always trying to assess as federal prosecutors -- well, two things. motive and intent. they're different. motive is why you did something and i don't have to prove motive. intent is whether or not you did that thing on purpose and i always have to prove that as a prosecutor. and i would love to hear his motive and intent and was it perhaps nefarious? i don't know. was he doing it at the behest of some other person? did he think there was legitimate reason to take this document and put it into a more secure place? these are all possibilities. and i have a theory but my theory doesn't matter. what matters is hearing from the witness as to motive and intent. >> what do you remember about phone calls? when you guys handled them with leader phone calls and how often would you see them? >> i would see transcripts or reconstructed transcripts i shall say of just about every phone call.

phone calls took great preparation. great work and thought would go into this. it's something that a package would go up to the president a day or so before his phone call. it would have talking points. it would have background. it would have everything he would need. typically, these would also be done in the oval office with senior aides sitting next to him. they could pass notes back and forth if they had to. and the process in the situation room isn't all that different from what we've heard in this case. you would have a transcriber working in the situation room. you would then have directors in the national security council staff who would go through it not just change the substance but to make sure specific technical terms like burisma wasn't missed. >> i saw they were using some sort of software. very quickly, as an attorney, as your prosecutor, you've seen these opening statements at least, right? we don't know -- i'm talking about these opening statements of the current investigation. that's the one -- these are facts we can confirm. everything else is still sources say.

looks like to me might have enough to indict. like, they want to keep getting information but if you get enough to issue an indictment and you still want to get more information, when do you -- when do you issue that indictment? and do you still go get more information? like, what is your line of, okay, i've got enough? >> well, so, there's no such thing as too much evidence when you're a federal prosecutor. you always want more. there is a law of diminishing margin returns. if you take too long to acquire evidence, right, then you're spending 95% of your time on the last 5% of the stuff. >> the blue shirt or orange shirt, right? >> yeah. at some point, it no longer makes sense. what they're doing now makes sense, chuck. they are talking to lots of witnesses to see if stories are consistent. not perfectly consistent because that would raise other concerns, as in -- >> people aligning their stories. >> but consistent enough to know that you are at the truth. >> so right now, you don't think they've overdone it yet. >> doesn't appear to me, no. >> chuck rosenberg, ed price. thank you both. joining me now is somebody who's been in the room for a lot of these depositions, including

today. it's new york democratic congressman greg meek. he's part of one of the three committees currently responsible for this inquiry. thanks for coming in. we were talking about the deposition of mr. morrison. we've seen the reports. we've seen he's confirmed largely mr. taylor's accounts there. what more can you tell us about mr. morrison? has he been a -- has he been a -- a -- a cooperative witness? >> yeah. i think that what you said and basically what i can drive eriv he has been a cooperating witness. we're trying to see in drive for the truth and he has basically corroborated what ambassador taylor has indicated. just as it seems as though there was a question initially about the whistle-blower, what he said. but most of the witnesses, just about all, have come in and been -- and have corroborated

what the whistle-blower said, what ambassador taylor has said. and what the president has said, too. so it seems to be cooperation throughout. that's why i think it 's good t be where we are now. >> well, what is this some point? and when do you think you've had enough evidence to start presenting what you have found to the public? >> well, i think that that's what the vote was about today. setting what those rules are. and soon, there will be public hearings. i heard, you know, part of your conversation. and i think that when you are a prosecut prosecutor and you go into the grand jury proceeding, you don't wash something through. you try to make sure you get all the evidence and you understand all the potential counts that might be in an indictment. so you don't want to go ahead and say, oh i got this and you indict and then you find out evidence later on. then you got to go back and redo

the process. you want to be as inclusive as you can. and that's what we're doing. you know, this is a very -- i know it's political but it's a very liberative process and it's something that i think nancy pelosi was right that no member of congress wanted to do or thought they would have to do when they were elected. so we're trying to dot i's and cross t's here and present it to the american people and take the facts we found from this proceeding to the judiciary so we can see whether articles of impeachment should be brought. >> right. but i -- i -- we can't -- we can't pretend that 2020's not around the corner. at what point -- where are you on that question? right? which is at what point does it start to get too close to the election where this becomes a harder -- a harder thing to explain to the american public? >> well, look, i don't think even now what we're trying to do and what i think is clear how the president abused his power. how the president threatened and

hurt the national security of the united states of america by withholding money to an ally. that becomes clear in how the president was trying to get a foreign government involved in our politics. that has come out of the president's mouth. now, you've got to corroborate it because you've got to prove it. we still, you know, trying -- the senate is a jury. i know some say it's going to be difficult to get 20 senators. i'm reminded of it was a late breaking thing with richard nixon when everybody was somewhere but once all the evidence had gotten out, had they tried to impeach richard nixon or talked about it when initially they were doing their investigatory stages, no one was there. but once the evidence was done, we'll see. i think it'll be done in a timely fashion but an appropriate fashion and a deliberate fashion. >> well, speaking of timing, we just learned a few minutes ago that the -- that a hearing is not going to be scheduled until december 10th to find out if mr.

kupperman, who's -- who has asked the courts to decide whether he can legally appear before you, you know, what -- what -- what does he fall under? the congressional subpoena? executive privilege? things like that. this will impact john bolton's potential testimony. december 10th is a long way away. that's more than a month away. how much does a delay in getting to kupperman, getting to bolton, how much does that delay the larger process here? >> well, i mean, these are substantial witnesses and that is something that is actually out of our control in the sense that the courts want to rule. look, we want as many people to come in to testify, whether they're part of the administration or not. i think that from witnesses that i saw, i want the public to be able to judge the -- the voracity of the people that have testified. i've heard some of my colleagues on the other side go after them. i want them to see the public servants that have come before us and they can make that judgment for themselves. the president has said they wanted to be able to call his own witnesses.

he seems to be the only one hiding behind executive privileges that want to prevent witnesses from testifying. so it seems to me you can't have it both ways. we are ready to hear them if they would come forward right now. if the president would stop trying to get them to hide behind executive privilege, we can do it in a much more timely fashion. so that question i think would be more appropriately asked to the president, why doesn't he let the people come testify? >> final question is, obviously, you know republicans on the other side of the aisle, they're hitting you on the process of this. how this is being conducted. are you sensitive to the fact that -- that you can't let these hearings become a spectacle? and, you know, you may have folks on the other side who are trying to bait many members of congress to make this a spectacle. how do you prevent that? >> i think that speaker pelosi and i think that what we've been doing at least in hearings that we've had thus far, adam schiff, chairman schiff has been very,

very professional about it. and i would hope that our republican colleagues would do the same. not play the kind of antics that they've done downstairs and the american public then will be able to see the antics that they did. when i hear such comments that, you know, republicans don't get a chance to ask questions and things of that nature, they do. and the public will get a chance to see that. so we will do what's on our part. i mean, this is -- we understand that the camera of history is rolling and we are being called upon it. and we are going to be very thoughtful about how we conduct and continue to move forward in regards to this impeachment inquiry. >> i like that praise. the camera of history is rolling. should be a catch phrase for those of us in television news. congressman greg meeks democrat from new york. thanks for coming on and sharing your views. much appreciate it. >> thank you fosh having me. after the break, we've got more on what is -- will be seen as a historic day in capitol hill.

plus, the view from the other side of the aisle. talk to another member who was in the room today as another key witness told his story. today asy witness told his story but we're also a company that controls hiv, 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. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. i'm about to capture proof of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! guaranteed monthly that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys

and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

we just heard from a democrat who's been present at the impeachment inquiries close door deposition. now, let's go to the other side of the aisle for republican point of view on this. kelly armstrong, member of both the house oversight committee and the house judiciary committee. congressman armstrong, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> well, let me start with the same question i started with mr. meeks. mr. morrison, what kind of witness was he as far as you were concerned? >> i think mr. morrison was a very good witness. i think it just goes to prove our point that we want all of these transcripts released. we want as much information out to the general public as soon as possible so the american people can decide what's going on down in the bunker. >> it sounds like you're for public hearings. so in some ways, you're glad

this process is going to become a more public thing. why is that? >> as somebody who sits on both the judiciary committee and has dealt with this impeachment farce since the first day i got into congress and has sat through almost all of the oversight depots, i haven't heard a single thing down there -- practiced criminal law for almost my entire adult life. there are procedures and things that go in place and as we get here, just public hearings isn't enough. i'm not sure you can undo the damage that has already been done. i mean, this is about credibility, and due process. but yes, i want public hearings. i want them as quickly and as fairly as possible. >> one of the things that the new law's going to allow for if the president wants to call witnesses, he can. what witnesses do you think he should call? or what witnesses would you like

to see called that haven't been? >> i would like to see mr. morrison's testimony as public as possible but those are decisions for the white house to take. i always air on the side of transparency. i mean, the one difference, we continue to equate these things to criminal cases but you have to remember at the end of any kind of criminal investigation, one, nothing leaks during the middle of it for as many criticisms i have of the mueller report, there weren't leaks going out every 30 seconds to drive a narrative. but the problem when you leak specific things is facts are stubborn things and as the whole picture comes into play, particularly with the game of telephone evidence, you're starting -- so i -- i -- i mean, i'm just going to err on the side of my constituents and anybody in the country seeing all of it. >> we've seen these opening statements and i'll be honest with you. i've been trying to be careful of just going by facts we've learned from opening statements and i've tried to ignore the sources say this was also said inside. but just based on the opening statements since that is something most of us have been

able to read, it is more transparent than anything else about this process. have you been concerned about the number of instances where it's clear the process wasn't followed here when it came to aid with ukraine? >> well, am i concerned about it? first of all bs i want to start with opening statements aren't even testimony. they're not part of the cross examination. they're not part of that process. so i -- i get -- testimony and evidence are two different things to begin with. particul particularly, when they're released without any cross examination. also, i would argue that most of these opening statements are -- i mean, it's not even hearsay because that would be -- some kind of official court proceeding. but it's the game of telephone. it's third hand, fourth hand, fifth hand information and without having the ability to read those whole transcripts, it's really hard to talk about that. i think those opening statements do not paint an accurate picture of what is being said. >> well, okay. but they certainly are standing by it. they're saying it under oath.

i mean, i do view -- i mean, should we not take what's said in those opening statements, whether it's ambassador taylor, whether it's fiona hill, that we shouldn't take that as their testimony? >> i think you should take that as their opening statements of their testimony. and when you have the whole transcript -- but i'll start with this. i think this is abundantly clear and this is something i've noticed in d.c. since the first day i got here. one of the things that the career establishment bureaucratic establishment doesn't like about the president is he doesn't do things in the same way that they're used to. and i think actually that's why the guy got elected and that's why i was proud to support him. so saying that something wasn't done properly or through proper channels does not make it illegal, does not make it improper, and does not make it impeachable by any stretch of the imagination. >> well, of course, there isn't a legal standard to impeachment. as you know, it doesn't matter something legal or not. as we know, impeachment is a political -- it's a political definition. right?

we know -- i mean, what's impeachable? it's like a ham sandwich. what can you indict? you can indict a ham sandwich. doesn't mean you convict a ham sandwich. >> as somebody who's served on the house judiciary committee and oversight committee, i can tell you with full support that this impeachment process is a purely political exercise. >> is there anything you've heard that's been disturbing to you? is there -- i'm curious. this -- because, you know, i've talked to plenty of republicans who are in this sort of middle ground. they don't believe it's impeachable. but they do think the president did something here that he shouldn't have done. but there is no mechanism to sort of wrap his wrists because it's either all or nothing. >> yeah. i think the answer to all of that is whenever you put yourself in the situation of somebody else, particularly somebody with president trump's personality and those such things, would you have done some things maybe a little different? sure. but that doesn't rise to the point of impeachment. particularly, when you're dealing with the democratic party that started these the second day i got here and just moves from one issue to the

other. i have seen nothing remotely close to something that rises to the conduct of impeachable. and if impeachment was actually, you know, high crimes and misdemeanors, as somebody who's done in in the court of law my entire life, i would be happy to defend the president in any real courtroom. >> all right. the most important thing is prove a point to me. are the washington nationals the only thing that united congress these days? >> is washington nationals are the only team you're allowed to have your second favorite team. but it was a great game last night. fantastic. >> all right. well, sort of the point i've been trying to prove. it's the one thing from keeping this town from totally cracking up. congressman, thank you for coming on and sharing your views, sir. appreciate it. >> happy halloween. >> thank you very much. up ahead, how does the impeachment inquiry change now that congress is on the record? nobody is surprised by how anybody voted on this one. so why did we make this so dramatic? we'll be right back. e make thiso dramatic we'll be right back. 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. i'm happy to give you the tour, i lohey jay. it. jay? charlotte! oh hi. he helped me set up my watch lists. oh, he's terrific. excellent tennis player.

bye-bye. i recognize that voice. annie? yeah! she helped me find the right bonds for my income strategy. you're very popular around here. there's a birthday going on. karl! he took care of my 401k rollover. wow, you call a lot. yeah, well it's my money we're talking about here. joining us for karaoke later? ah, i'd love to, but people get really emotional when i sing. help from a team that will exceed your expectations. ♪ whwhat do you see?he world, we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

we take no joy in having to move down this road and proceed with the impeachment inquiry. but neither do we shrink from it. >> welcome back. to help unpack what's been a busy day here in wash washining. always seems to know what's going on on the hill. former advisor hilary clinton's 2016 campaign. former capitol hill chief of staff herself nbc news contributor. former press secretary -- bunch of capitol hill rats in a good way i say. right? is that tough? sahil, how significant is today? >> it's certainly significant in that this is only the fourth time in american history the house has voted -- we didn't learn much about where people are going to come down. only two democrats across the

aisle. they're the only ones who really put a stake in the sand and said we're going to vote against party leadership where people mostly get in line. no republicans voted for this. there's plenty of time if they decide at the end of the day, there's time to do that. democrats, similar story. these democrats can vote how they want in the final vote, that is what counts. >> let me ask the two of you, you both have been advisors to members of congress up there. i'll start with you. if you have a democratic member of congress who said, look, i got to be against this impeachment at some point. would you say today's the time to do it? or wait till there's articles? >> still tbd, right? we don't know how many similar votes like are going to come. look, pelosi's office is making the following point that it was important to get all this on the record to have members of congress, both democrats and republicans on the record voting for this because there are some changes to the procedural process for the impeachment inquiry. and yes, she didn't -- i think she felt it was very important

to be able to at least go out there and establish the fact that this was something the house voted on. this was not a silo decision that was only made by speaker pelosi. this is something that brought democrats and republicans together. of course, there was a party line vote but nonetheless she felt it was important to show she's working with republicans to put this on the floor. >> if you needed -- to the no-impeachment stake in the sand, is this a vote to do that on? or would you wait? >> i think if my boss was going to be the lone member or one of the few, then i probably would have said let's go with the caucus. find a way down the road to separate yourself. >> brendan, same question on the other side. if you're advising a republican who's like i don't like what the president did, at some point i got to say that. >> there is safety in numbers. if there was a handful of people thinking about it, everybody would be focused on them if they went. but i want to clear perception there were a lot of hand wringers today. this may sound strange to people but today the president was potentially set up for impeachment and perhaps

republicans this was a big day. they left the capitol excited because they've been itching to show that they are fighting for the president. that's why they stormed the scif a few days ago to show that they were fighting for him. i guarantee you marc meadows earlier said today was a 9.5 for him and just because of the political benefit. >> they all want to be seen as fighting for the president, being on his side. and frarnkly nothing excites republicans in the house more than being united. >> here's what struck me about today, i feel like everybody hid behind leadership. at the end of the day, i when this vote first happened, i would have assumed everybody needed to explain their vote so that we would have had -- in fact, i assumed we were going to be stuck here doing parade coverage of just constant because like healthcare. remember, it took hours because everybody wanted to make that statement to their local -- so their local tv station picked up what they said. nobody wanted to explain their vote today. >> it's a procedural vote. there's usually not a lot of explaining to be done on a

procedural vote unless you cross party lines. >> okay but sahil, what -- yes, it was a procedural vote but it was not a procedural vote. it was big enough she decided to have the gavel which that sends a message. >> absolutely it did. the speaker of the house typically does not vote. this was unusual magnitude. look, one thing it does is this moves the whole impeachment process to a new phase. so far, it's been procedural. republicans have been calling this a sham, a farce. a lot of them have not been saying trump did nothing wrong. >> his argument is simply release the transcripts. said differently like, you know, nobody is ready to be all in with him. you can tell that. >> it's always easier to attack the process. >> i've been talking to a lot of folks. they are going to hold on to the process argument as long as they possibly can. but there is some recognition that that's going to run out eventually. you know, when there's public hearings. i think what you are going to start hearing a lot of is, no quid pro quo. >> that's not the worst thing.

it was bad but it wasn't that bad. >> it will shift the conversation away from did he ask for dirt on -- and -- and framing the question as was there something in exchange for it? they'll say the aid flowed. clearly, there wasn't anything done in exchange for that. so, therefore, no quid pro quo. case closed. that's the argument you're going to start hearing. >> it's a nuanced argument. >> i completely agree. and that's what republicans have been doing so far. they are running out of options on this. and when they go out and say there's no quid pro quo, that's when they start getting defensive of the argument, they are going against national security leaders, military leaders. people who have received purple hearts. i mean, some of the most decorated veterans that we have who are so credible on these issues, they are going against them. and that's where i think this creates a very difficult situation for republicans. really quickly, chuck, on the vote. i think it's also important to keep in mind there are not a lot of swing districts left out there in congress, right? yes, i mean democrats did very well in the midterms but when it comes to republicans, most the

republicans who are currently in congress, correct me if i'm wrong brendan, but pretty much -- right? >> there's still about a dozen or so. yes. >> yeah but you lost most of them. currently held by democrats. so i think republicans probably felt safe going out there and voting the way they did because not a lot of them are in marginal states right now. >> sahil, i think democrats were dealt a bit of a timing blow today when we found out kupperman's hearing isn't going to be until december 10th. when you think about the public hearings, the potential power of public hearings with john bolton talking with, you know, somebody in their dress blues talking things like that. but if they're not going to a clear when bolton can testify, and we're talking into mid-december, this whole -- the slower this gets rolled out, you know, i could see 2020 from my house. you know? >> real timing blow. the real nightmare scenario is this kicks into january. think mid-january. the senate trial is in february. >> well, at that point, can they have a trial if it's in

february? adrian, if you -- what would you do? >> we talked about this on the show before. yes. you can have a trial. it's not the most ideal situation -- currently running exactly because you can be everywhere and the senators have to be back in washington on the trial. you can have surrogates on the campaign. it's going to be interesting to see the creative surrogates that are put out there. >> let me argue the opposite. i don't think the story at this point is that there is stonewalling. i think from what i expected this to be, there is an embarrassment of riches of people who already testified. and i -- you know, and maybe this person has compelling testimony but i would argue they've already got a bunch of compelling testimony and plenty of people they could bring forward for hearings as soon as they want to. >> you think they can do basically both things at the same time. have their hearings and still fight their legal bat lgs. >> i think that court fight is going to be much more relevant long into the future, you know, the article one versus article two fight than it is relevant to this particular situation. >> democrats are thinking like

prosecutors who have a defendant who they're pretty well sure is guilty. but they know they're going to face a very tough audience in the jury, which is the republican-led senate. trying to cover every base so they don't get blindsided. >> good way of putting it. they know they have the goods but they have a tough jury. >> exactly. >> all right. sahil, adrian, brendan, stick around. coming up, there is a presidential campaign going on. we're going to give you evidence of it in a second. we're going to give you evidence of it in a second. ♪ 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. ♪ at outback, steak & oh no, it's gone.ck. phew, it's back with lobster mac & cheese. it's gone again. oh, it's back with shrimp now! steak & lobster starting at only $15.99. hurry in before these three are gone again. outback steakhouse. fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. why do wrinkles happen at the worst times? showing up here here and even here?

with new bounce rapid touch up spray, you can fight wrinkles anywhere. spray smooth and you're fresh and ready to go wherever you are. new bounce rapid touch up spray. bounce out wrinkles anywhere. whyou should be mad that airports are complicated... he's my emotional support snake. ...but you're not, because you have e*trade, whose tech isn't complicated. it helps you understand the risk and reward potential on an options trade. don't get mad. get e*trade. there are lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to

meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yeah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today.

welcome back tonight in 2020 vision too say if washington it would be an understatement. it's only thursday. while the democrats here are focused on impeachment, democrats on the campaign trail are keeping on keeping on. or they're trying. pretty much every candidate hopeful will be in iowa for the big liberty injustice dinner, the jjj jefferson jackson dinner. many democrats are changing the name of that dinner. some of the candidates are there. joe biden is holding an event in iowa. he's the first candidate to say the house did its constitutional duty. colors is al clarz is in i-- kamela harris is there. bernie sanders was beat by mayor pete by a day. it will swing by the state house sometime in the next 15 days to file before the deadline.

so what does a democratic presidential campaign do while we have impeachment hearings here? we'll be right back with more meet the press daily. here we'll be right back with more meet the press daily 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. ♪ we have some great new ideas that we want to present to you today. [son]: who are you talking to? [son]: that guy's scary. the first item on the list is selecting a chairman for the... for the advisory board what's this? as well as use the remaining... child care options run out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't.

guaranteed monthly income for life. i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. here's the thing about managing for your business.s when you've got public clouds, and private clouds, and hybrid clouds- things can get a bit cloudy for you. but now, there's the dell technologies cloud, powered by vmware.

a single hub for a consistent operating experience across all your clouds. that should clear things up. that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know.

xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today. welcome back. as we just told you most of the 2020 democratic field is far away from washington right now, far away from the impeachment debate. the panel is back, so hill, adrian and brendan, adrian, i'll start with you. you were working with a

presidential campaign. right now you got about -- this isn't, there is down days, you said you got breaks during national disasters, you not being the news, that's one thing. but this is going to be a sustained period of time where the presidential campaign is going to feel secondary. >> sure. it's definitely a challenge, right? because the national news and you obviously would know this than any of us on this panel, chuck, is going to focus on impeachment. it's going to drive the news, it's that much harder if you are a candidate to get your point across. >> kamela harris needs to find, is trying to get back into relevance. >> or steve bullock. >> this is good if you are biden or warren, right? you are already on top? >> there is a chance that this freezes the primary. it's a chance to get out and focus on your message and get the headlines in the des moines register and the manchester newspaper, really trying to get your local press going, that, you will not get a lot of

national news. it's a good time to get local headlines. >> you assume local news exists anymore, i assume all news is national. >> i remember when elizabeth warren said you don't find that. >> we find out you don't. >> i think it helps her and biden and people at the top. if you are a corey booker or kamela harris at this point you have no options, you better raise some money and do other things. >> i want to push. >> the undercard, people outside the top three, even if pete buttigieg, kamela harris, this is a time when boone happens, it happens on a national level. >> jjj is where barack obama basically threw down the gauntlet in iowa. everybody said, oh, this is real. that's this weekend. right? and you are right, can that boom happen if washington is obsessed? >> this is the moment theoretically to make that happen. it's hard to do without attention. i mean national attention, iowa

press can only get you so far. >> i will respectfully disagree. this is a time for candidates to focus on local press. we're not seeing what people are reading, digesting in the first four early states. but this is a chance to really focus on that. there are people watching their local news, reading their local newspapers. and again, that is why you are seeing in some of these early states, people are polling, candidates are polling better in their early states and national lid and vice versa. this is a chance to hone in on our local strategy and get your numbers up in the targett regions. >> i want to focus on one thing. we have, joe manchin went on fox a couple days ago, he was asked about bernie sanders, he basically said he doesn't think he can support bernie sanders if he were the nominee. bernie sanders has a message for joe manchin. >> i would remind joe manchin of west virginia to take a look at the election results in the last

democratic primary held in west virginia. if my memory is correct, i believe, i won every county in west virginia. and we won with a very strong victory. >> look, elected democrat saying something about a top basically saying he can't support a top elected potential nominee. is that a problem? i know bern? i on one extreernlgs manchin on the other? >> i don't think it's a problem for manchin, i think for a progressive democrat more hoff a main stream democrat. joe manchin is obviously taken. >> you have no problems with manchin? >> i do. he flirted with thep idea of running again. even to bernie sander's he did sweep vest virginia. >> he did, it's a smaller democratic electorate these days. >> everyone in walk understands the situation joe manchin is in, in west virginia. i think bernie sanders is the only person who would take a swipe at him there. you know, who thinks that's good politics for everybody.

or can't absorb it and do what's good for the party. >> by the way, he's probably right. if he were running in the democratic primary, bernie sanders, that might be maybe. so, hill, adrian, brendan, thank you all. we can't say good-bye one more time without saying congratulations to the washington nationals. the first world series championship in 95 years. so it was a very good day all around the "meet the press" offices today. congrats, it got everybody free lunch. we'll be back with more "meet the press daily." ari "the beat" starts now. you have been working all day. >> the series, congratulations to you all in the whole city. >> we are happy to be united about something. >> i think that's a theme. you know by the end of tonight, we will talk about being united about halloween as well. our hats off to you, chuck todd, all of your superstitions and your babe