my thanks to my friends on this wild day to kick off a wild week. thanks to betsy woodrough swan, jeremy bash, donna edwards, heidi przybyla. most of all, to you for watching. "mtp daily" with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck starts now. welcome to monday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm katy tur in new york for chuck todd. we've got breaking news on the impeachment inquiry at the start of this enormously consequential week. and as public impeachment hearings are about to begin.

house investigators have just released the transcript of their deposition with laura cooper. she's the pentagon official whose testimony was delayed by five hours late last month when republicans stormed the secure hearing room. the transcript of cooper's testimony reveals how some pentagon officials were sounding the alarm over the president's decision to withhold military aid to ukraine. cooper testified that pentagon officials were increasingly worried about the aid being held up. and that they couldn't get a straight answer from the white house as to why. she also testified that some pentagon officials were worried about the legality of such a move. this transcript comes just two days before public hearings begin and as democrats are looking to sharpen their case, republicans are broadening their defenses. the president today falsely claimed that democrats were releasing doctored transcripts of the proceedings, among other twitter rants. meanwhile, rank and file

republicans are clearly signaling they will find a way to defend the president despite the mounting evidence against him. >> the quid pro quo, in my judgment, is a red herring. if he asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival, that's not over the line. >> i think it's a big mistake for anybody to argue quid pro quo. it didn't have quid pro quo. i know that's what the administration's arguing. i wouldn't make that argument. i would make the argument that every politician in washington, other than me virtually, is trying to manipulate ukraine to their purposes. >> i've never heard the president say, you know, i want to dig up dirt on a potential 2020 opponent. >> i believe that it is inappropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. i do not believe it was impeachable. >> this as republicans on the

committees involved in the impeachment inquiry are trying to run towards the president's misconduct, not away from it because in a case about the president's efforts to investigate the bidens and the 2016 election, they want to call hunter biden and a dnc contractor as witnesses. they also want the whistle-blower to testify publicly. democrats are likely going to deny these requests as they confront a daunting challenge of their own. how do they lay out their case against the president while navigating a caucus of republicans who fiercely loyal to him? but we begin tonight with the latest. my nbc news colleagues in washington are reporting. garrett haake is at capitol hill and jeff bennett is at the white house. so laura cooper's testimony has just been released, garrett. she's the official that was in charge of, i guess, the national security funding with ukraine. what did we learn from her testimony that we had not known before now? >> cooper describes being essentially dumb founded when she finds out that this aid to ukraine is being held up and not given any explanation why.

only that the chief of staff's office has ordered that the aid not be released. over time, then, she describes discussions with dod and this interagency process of the u.s. government to figure out why this happened and whether they can reverse-engineer a way somehow that it's legal. they struggle to come up with what possible reasoning there could be. checking off, you know, that ukraine had met these other anti-corruption goals that had been set for it. that indeed this was money legally mandated by congress to go there. finally, she describes a couple of conversations with kurt volker, the special envoy to ukraine, in which volker says, look, we all want to get this money released. i think i have a way. there's a statement that we're talking about with ukraine. cooper says she thought the statement -- it was her understanding that the statement was about election interference, specifically related to 2016. but at this point, they are looking for solutions here. her testimony also includes the fact that it's her belief, although she admits that this is only her strong inference, that the ukrainians knew about the security assistance hold before

it had been publicly reported. that's important, of course, because it rebuts one of the president's main talking points, which is this couldn't have been bribery or extortion or quid pro quo, pick your word, if ukrainians did not know something was being withheld and for what reason. cooper says, in fact, they did know and, you know, believes that they, in fact, knew why. >> she also testifies, garrett, about why it was necessary that the aid be released to ukraine. she said if the aid is not released, it would weaken a strategic partner. can you just explain to our viewers what the bipartisan policy toward ukraine was before this controversy that's come out in the last few months? and why it was bipartisan policy? >> sure. absolutely. this is the heart of the national security argument here around why democrats believe this is an impeachable offense. support for ukraine and particularly the military in ukraine and good governance rule of law institutions in ukraine has been a bipartisan priority of congress really since the

fall of the soefviet union but especially since the country was invaded by russian separatists. when the crimian peninsula was essentially carved out of ukraine, support for ukraine along with other former soviet republics like georgia, latvia, lithuania, estonia. has been a bipartisan think thing because members of congress believe the best defense an aggressive expansionist russia is for them to have strong pro-nato, pro-western neighbors supported by the united states. so the military funding, in this case, $400 million of it in two separate chunks, is not only important for what it buys. but it's important for the signal that it sends to russia that the united states has ukraine's back. and if that money is held up, if that signal is not sent, it's not just bad for ukraine, it's bad for the public facing diplomacy of the united states looking to stand up for its allies. >> i believe she also testifies that she was told that omb said

don't release the funds and that that came from the president. jeff, any reaction from the white house? >> not just yet, katy. but generally, the reaction among republicans writ large is to rally around the president. even as you saw some of those republicans suggest that president trump's interaction with his ukrainian counterpart is inappropriate, if not wholly impeachable. so the strategy generally from republicans heading into this week's hearings is to introduce confusion, to introduce as many extraneous and dubious arguments as humanly possible really. to take this ukraine investigation down as many rabbit holes as they possibly can. one reason why we know that is because of the republican witness list that you referenced at the top of the show. so on wednesday, we can expect to hear republicans introduce hunter biden's name ad nauseam to give the effect of basically launching the kind of investigation in that hearing room that democrats allege president trump wanted ukrainian officials to launch into the bidens. but republicans will have their

work cut out for them on wednesday and friday and here's why. a democratic source familiar told me that these hearings are intentionally choreographed so even if the american people tune in for just the first hour, they will have heard plenty. that's what i was told by a democratic source familiar. that the -- that the first hour is designed to be a bombshell. and these hearings will look different than from any other congressional hearing the people have seen to this point because the first 45 minutes, adam schiff, the democratic leader of the house intelligence committee, will be able to make the case. he will be able to pursue lines of inquiry with both witnesses that would be different and longer than a traditional congressional hearing where you might have a lawmaker have five minutes here. another one has five minutes there. and sometimes there's grandstanding. sometimes there's lines of questioning that don't support the other. and so that is why one of the reasons why republicans will have a heavier lift in trying to do president trump's bidding in trying to undercut the argument that democrats are trying to bring against him in this impeachment inquiry. katy.

>> garrett haake, jeff bennett. thank you very much. joining me now is pennsylvania democratic congresswoman. she is a member of the house judiciary committee, which ultimate ultimately may be called upon to draft articles of impeachment. congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. as jeff bennett just laid out, he said the first 45 minutes, first housh of these public hearings, democrats believe they are going to be lay it all out if that's the only hour the public watches. are the democrats basically saying that they're going to be able to convince the public in that first hour on wednesday that the president committed an impeachable offense? >> i don't think it's up to one hour. and it's not up to just convincing the people by way of one witness. but what we are going to see and what we've already seen through some of the released transcripts is career, courageous, legacy employees. people who have worked in the state department and other departments for our country coming forward and corroborating

the same pattern of abuse by this administration. they actually tried to extort the president of ukraine saying that we will withhold aid. basically, they did withhold aid. and asked that he make sure he announces publicly, investigations into a political foe. it's not going to be about one hour. it's going to be about getting the facts before the american public and these courageous people are coming forward to do that. first, they have done it through the investigations that are being done in private. and now, this week, you will see, in public, whether it's mr. taylor, ambassador yovanovitch, mr. kent, and others, coming forward to tell the exact same pattern of extortion, the attempt by this president to ask, demand frankly, a foreign country to interfere in our elections. how sadly far we've come. >> are democrats prepared for republicans to -- to gum up the process?

we saw this a couple weeks ago when laura cooper, whose testimony was just released today, was supposed to testify. republicans stormed the scif and held up that testimony for five hours. we've gotten indications and reporting from republicans that they plan on doing just that when these public hearings start on wednesday. try to slow up the process. are democrats prepared for it? and what will they do? >> americans saw that as the shameful stunt that it was. storming a scif that most of those members had the right and really responsibility to be in, to be there, to listen to testimony, to ask questions, and then flippantly order pizza. i'll tell you what. our caucus takes this very differently. we take this seriously. soberly, somberly as nancy pelosi says, we take it prayerfully. we are on a journey for this country that is so serious and so grave that i hope our republican counterparts on my committee and these other committees of jurisdiction take it for that somber moment that it is.

it's impossible to believe that stunts are the way to go forward on an impeachment inquiry. when the corruption and the wrongdoing of this administration has been corroborated by so many. so i call upon the republicans to make sure that they take it with the same seriousness and talk about the facts, not nonsense. >> well, let's talk about the facts and the public's reaction to the facts. how much do you need the -- the public to get on the side of impeachment before voting on impeachment? are articles of impeachment contingent upon poll numbers that show the american public is behind impeaching the president? does it need to be -- does it need to be overwhelming? >> i don't -- i don't watch the polls. but i do believe that this is a case that we have to put before the american people and make sure that they understand and believe the evidence. believe the evidence of wrongdoing. believe of evidence of a president on a phone call with

ukraine asking this president, who has under foreign intervention five years of invasion by our foe and their foe, russia, to make sure that he comes forward with investigations of the bidens, a political opponent, before he will get the much-needed aid he asked for. he asked literally for military aid. talked about javelins and the need for it and the president said i will need a favor from you, though. the american people have a right to hear the evidence, to know the evidence. >> yes. >> and -- and we need to put that before them. before we come forward with articles of impeachment or the vote. >> let me ask you this. i ask about poll numbers because right now, it looks like if there is an impeachment vote, it's going to be down party lines. no republicans have shown support for the impeachment inquiry. and it's, i think, a high bar for a republican to decide to vote to impeach the president as of now. so if the polling comes out that shows the public is

overwhelmingly behind the democrats on this, my assessment of the situation shows that that's the only way that republicans might get on board. if it looks like their -- their seats are in peril in some way, if their constituents want them to vote to impeach. >> oh, katy. >> do you need to see those numbers to get the republicans on board? and if not -- if not -- are you comfortable having this be a party-line vote? >> oh, dear. what you describe is -- is awfully seriously grave. i hope that is not the way this is considered by anybody, democrat or republican. our founders put in the -- the -- the ability to impeach a sitting president only for the most serious of violations of his oath of office. so i hope that the republicans take their oath of office as seriously. >> i get when you say you hohope, you hope, you hope. i'm not trying to be disrespectful but i do think we need to look at the landscape as it stands right now and what the

republicans have said and are willing to do to defend the president. so it seems like it is a very high bar for them. and my question is, are you comfortable making this a party-line vote? because that -- that is what it -- where it looks like it is heading. >> i will not leap to that conclusion because we have not completed the investigation. we have not completed putting the information before the american public. i hope this does not come down to a party-line vote. i hope it comes down to the right vote. a vote based on the evidence and upholding my oath of office to the constitution and the president's oath of office to the constitution. i pray it does not come down to so cynical a party line vote. and i've never been one to say that no republican will ever vote for impeachment. we're not there yet. let's get the evidence out before the american people in a public way. there are very good people on both sides of the aisle who have the ability to analyze the evidence, i hope, without consideration for the next primary. >> i hear what you're saying but so many republicans have said they refuse to read the

transcripts. look at lindsey graham as one of them. congresswoman madelyn dean, congresswoman, thank you so much. we appreciate your time. ahead, more on this newly released testimony and what to expect from this huge week on capitol hill. plus, the mick mulvaney mystery. why does the white house chief of staff want to join a lawsuit against the president? the latest on the court hearing that's going on right this moment. and former u.n. ambassador nikki haley says the president's former chief of staff and the former secretary of state were trying to undermine the president when they were still in their jobs. that is coming up. that is coming up. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. so why haven't you started building? tyler's off to college. and mom's getting older. mhm, and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade.

come with a goal. leave with a plan. 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.

according to that newly released transcript from the impeachment inquiry's deposition with deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper, top u.s. officials openly questioned the legality of putting a hold on ukrainian foreign aid immediately after they received the directive from the omb. quote, in that meeting, immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this

withholding ukraine aid could be done in a legal fashion. this came as pentagon officials were apparently given no explanation from the white house as to why the aid was being withheld. joining me now is gabe, national correspondent for "new york magazine." zerlina maxwell. and elise jordan, former aide in the george w. bush white house and state department and also msnbc political analyst. welcome, everybody. gosh, a new transcript today. this time, it was from laura cooper. she's in charge of the aid in ukraine and she's saying that there was a quid pro quo. kurt volker told her so. >> the big takeaway that i got from my very quick scan of the long transcript, considering it just came out about 40 minutes ago, was that she was confused as to why the aid had been withheld. and omb had said stop the aid and no one in congress had been

notified. and so you have a lot of career government officials and bureaucrats debating the legalities of donald trump's decision to withhold aid. >> with her testimony and -- and now a number of other testimony that's out there as well, how -- what is the -- the picture that's being painted? and -- and i guess how are democrats going to make it easy to understand and digest in a public hearing starting on wednesday? >> well, i think one of the thing things that y things that you saw in this testimony and a lot of other testimony, is really the different silos of information within the white house and the administration overall where the people who are making these decisions were really, you know, one small group of people. and everyone else was left guessing as to what exactly was going on. the defense department wasn't looped in. congress wasn't looped in. so i think what you're going to see some democrats try and say is essentially just focus on these initial characters, whether it's the president, rudy giuliani, gordon sondland, in some cases john bolton, mike pompeo, mick mulvaney. just look at them in terms of how the decisions were made and they are going to try to make

the case in a very simple way that there was a quid pro quo, as all this testimony keeps suggesting, keeps saying explicitly. the democrats have been pretty clear. what they're aiming to do is tell a very simple story within the first few minutes of this testimony that, you know, they're prepared to -- they're prepared to tell to the american people. >> if they botch that first hour, how hard is it -- how hard will it be for democrats to i guess convince the american public that this is a necessary move? >> i think the job for democrats is essentially to extract the information from the witnesses. this is different than a regular hearing where you haven't heard from the witnesses before. you know what they're going to say. so in some ways, this is like a direct examination at a trial where you know exactly what the witness is going to say and your job is to frame questions that extract the answers that will then illuminate what the narrative is for the audience. and i think this is a really simple story. i've been trying to figure out a good analogy for it and i know that there's been a lot of talk of the "god father" because of roger stone's trial but i liken

this more to the sopranos where the new guy that owns the restaurant or the bakery on the corner has a visit from a couple of guys who say, hmm, nice restaurant you have here. it would be a shame if something happened to it. and they open up their hand and they extort money. that is what essentially happened here. this was a shakedown of the -- of the newly-elected government of ukraine for something of value. and that is not something that is in line with the law. and the president now is going to hopefully be held accountable and the democrats' job is to tell that story. so maybe they'll tell it the way that i just did or in more legal terms. but i think it's a simple story for the american people. and there is a lot of different ways you can tell it. >> what will republicans need to hear in order to vote for impeachment if it comes to that? >> republicans are going to need to hear blatant criminality and quite frankly we know that that's not going to be enough for some of them because we have heard blatant criminality and as

long as the message is willingly distorted by president trump and his surrogates, the disinformation is going to continue to flow. and so the gaslighting excuses might rule the day at the end of it. >> if this is a party line -- is it a bad thing if it's party-line vote? >> i think it's a terrible moment for our country when right and wrong is a partisan issue. and we're voting along partisan lines for whether congress should have a say in the dispensing of military funding that's in our national interest that they voted to approve. >> how many republicans do democrats need in order to say that this was bipartisan? is it just one republican? is it just justin amash who is an independent now? or do they need, four, five, ten? >> they would love to get as many as possible. but republicans have made very clear for the most part that they have no intention of voting for impeachment. there are obviously some, many you might say, who are saying i'm going to keep an open mind

here. but you don't have to try very hard to read between the lines here. obviously, more information can come out that's going to push republicans over the edge. but it's also very clear that the only thing that's likely to push them over the edge would be an indication that their voters are moving on this. >> i was trying to get to that with -- with congresswoman dean. does -- do democrats need to focus not on convincing republicans but convincing the american public and seeing those poll numbers rise, the impeachment poll numbers rise to 60-70% in order to get republicans in some of these, i don't know, purple districts or maybe not so deep red districts to say, hey, listen my seat now is at stake. >> i think that's the goal. i don't know that it will matter. i honestly do not think the republicans are going to do the right thing just because the majority of americans. >> so they're going to latch themselves to the president no matter what. >> i think so. but, you know, i can be wrong. i'm wrong all the time. we all are. and i'm optimistic that they may do the right thing on behalf of

the country because i think that this is a simple story. again, it's about getting a foreign government interfering in our election. we've been through this story. the american people are very conditioned to understand the facts of this story. it's almost perfect, right? we went through a whole russia investigation. now, we're all -- we all understand that it's not okay to ask a foreign government to interfere. and then he went and did it. so now, all you have to do is deliver that story to the american people. >> let's switch gears for a second and talk about nikki haley. she's out on her book tour and in her book, she says that she was approached by a couple of the cabinet members, john kelly being one of them, to say that the president was doing dangerous things and would she get on board with trying to stop him? and she says how inappropriate it was and they should have told the president. any indication that she told the president? >> not from my read of the excerpt. >> should she have told the president? >> i think that when the president is trying to do something that is illegal, advisors have a responsibility to counsel the president that, no, this is illegal.

we cannot follow through on your order. if the president is trying to push a policy preference, then an advisor is opposed to -- and the advisor uses their own position to thwart the democratly-elected leader's aims, then yes that's out of line. but i think i would differentiate between illegality and policy preferences. >> what do you make of -- of nikki haley right now? >> nikki haley is betting big that trumpism is going to survive and that is going to be the prevailing current within the republican party. >> why? >> well, the idea here is clearly she's looking out for her political future in a way almost no one else in this administration, except for pence and pompeo probably, are considering. running in 2024. running in 2028 and looking after that. their thinking is that they can't be seen to be running against trump right now. but that, you know, they're clearly all leaving themselves enough wiggle room moving forward. what she is saying essentially is i was the adult in the room but i wasn't willing to stand up to the president because he didn't need standing up to.

>> there's all these rumblings that maybe she wants to be the vice president nominee for 2020. there's talk that maybe trump would ditch mike pence. nothing substantiated but there are those rumors that are floating around. >> i mean, he could try. and then i suppose she would be a human shield for any accusations of sexism or racism. i guess that would be one strategic play. but i don't think he's going to do that because i think mike pence actually locks up that evangelical base that donald trump cannot live without. so i don't see a shift. but maybe that would be the reason. >> gabe, zerlina, and elise. you guys are sticking with us. don't go too far. we just got two more transcripts released from the impeachment inquiry and we are going to bring any news as we get it. still ahead, the incredible shrinking number of house republicans. the party's retirement problems just got even worse. e party's r just got even worse.

i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ i athere was a sports carre and a family saloon car and i always had in my mind that one day the family car could compete in rallies and racing when the mini actually came out i said this is the one to do it.

a more secure diaper closure. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. we are people helping people. even those wthenot actors, people, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent.

serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. tonight in 2020 vision, another house republican is calling it quits. reflecting a massive shift in the chamber under president trump. long-time long island congressman peter king announced today that his current term will be his last. he was first elected in 1992 and was an outspoken advocate for homeland security in the wake of 9/11. he also notably broke with the republican party and vote against impeaching bill clinton. king says this time he will vote with his party on impeachment

and says he plans to fully support the president for re-election next year. king is the 16th republican house member who is not running for re-election and there are also four more who are opting to run for other office. but that is just a fraction of the house republican turnover in the trump era. when president trump took office in 2017, there were 241 house republicans. as of today, 101 of those members have gone or announced that they're leaving. a departure rate of 42%. and that 101 is not republican seats. it is the number of people who have left or are leaving, even if they handed their seat over to another republican. folks, everyone agrees that president trump has transformed the republican party in his own image but the rate of turnover in the house since his election is just frankly remarkable. and there is a good chance that departure number will get even bigger over the holidays when members may decide that they don't particularly enjoy being

part of the house minority when donald trump is president. we'll be back with more "mtp daily" right after this. ily" right after this. prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us must be hot out there, huh? not especially.

-[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking? gasoline. right, but i mean, what's in the cup? gasoline. [ slurping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

even for a story full of twists and turns, the latest legal twist in the impeachment inquiry is odd. right now, there's a hearing going on where acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney is trying to join a lawsuit against his boss, president trump. and if that weren't odd enough, the existing plaintiff does not want a legal alliance with mick mulvaney. the lawsuit on impeachment testimony was first brought by former national security advisor john bolton's deputy charles cooperman, who shares a lawyer with bolton. cooperman asked a federal judge to determine whether he should comply with a house subpoena in the impeachment investigation or if he should obey white house orders not to testify. unlike bolton and kupperman, mulvaney is a current white house official and his latest legal move is raising a lot of

questions and a lot of confusion. nbc justice correspondent pete williams is following this story. pete, there is a hearing going on right now. can you make sense of this for us? >> well, we think it's still going on. we don't know. it's a conference call between the judge and the lawyers here. but because the courthouse is closed, we don't know whether it's over yet or not. but here's the deal here. kupperman filed his lawsuit saying to the judge, i've got the subpoena from the house. i've got the white house telling me not to testify. you tell me what to do. i don't care one way or the other. i just want to -- i just want to make sure i don't violate the law. so tell me what to do here, judge. today, or rather friday, mulvaney's lawyer sought to intervene in that lawsuit. but today, kupperman's lawyers say, no, no, no, we don't want him in our lawsuit for the following reasons. number one, they say, unlike kupperman, he does care how the judge rules because the way he styled his motion to intervene was to say that he was opposing the order from the house that he should have -- that he should be subpoenaed and follow the subpoena and testify.

number two, they say, he may have already waved any immunity when he had that news conference and talked about a quid pro quo and number three, kupperman's lawyers say to the judge, you know what, last week, the house withdrew the subpoena for kupperman's testimony saying things have moved on. we don't need him anymore. allowing mulvaney to enter at this point is just going to bog it down and prevent you from doing what you ought to do, judge, which is to dismiss this lawsuit. so if mulvaney doesn't prevail here, if he can't intervene, then presumably, he'll just have to file his own lawsuit against the house to resist this subpoena. but, you know, i think there's another route here. he could just simply refuse to do anything. in the past, when administration officials have asserted executive privilege, and we have to note that this is a claim that both republican and democratic administrations make. this is not an invention of the trump administration. the -- the clinton administration argued this very strongly, too, under janet reno,

the attorney general. if he just does nothing, what does congress do? they find him in contempt. they refer the matter to a u.s. attorney and guess what? nothing happens. so he could simply resist the subpoena. he has a couple of choices here. >> what happens if the administration turns over and has a democratic administration? is he potentially trying to guard against any future retaliation -- not retaliation -- but future legal peril? >> maybe. and another possibility is he just wants to run out the clock because no matter what this federal judge rules, undoubtedly, there'll be an appeal whoever loses to the court of appeals and maybe even to the supreme court asking them to take the case, which they may or may not do. and, you know, the impeachment process, at least in the house, may be over by then. so perhaps that's another tactic here is just to run out the clock. >> pete williams. pete, thank you very much. for more what this could mean, i'm joined now by constitutional law expert and american university law professor robert

psy. robert, always good to see you. what are the -- i guess walk through the likelihood that we're going to hear from either kupperman or bolton or mulvaney given -- given this hearing. >> boy, it's hard to know what to expect. i do think it's interesting. i mean, pete did a very nice job of laying out why the bolton/kupperman camp thinks that the interests of their side do not line up with mulvaney's legal interests. but i think that there's also something else at stake, which is that each camp is also trying to protect their individual reputations. mulvaney is obviously someone who could just do nothing, as pete points out. and the house is unlikely to invoke its own inherent contempt power. it doesn't think that there's enough time to go to the courts to do anything else really. they are trying to consider

switching vehicles. there's the mcgahn lawsuit that's ongoing. that might raise the same issues and get to a more expedient judicial sort of decision. so i think that mulvaney is probably trying to intervene, in part, to protect his reputation so that he looks like not just the lackey of the president but someone who might want to have a political career after this all sort of shakes out. >> does it make it more difficult to potentially hear from john kupperman? >> i don't think it necessarily makes it more difficult. what the bolton/kupperman lawyers have said is that they have a different set of interests. they are involved with national security. they are concerned with representing the interest of the united states in that sense. mulvaney isn't necessarily involved in those issues is what they've written in their legal memo. to the judge. i think this is where their reputation is also at stake.

they don't want mulvaney's involvement in possibly holding up the -- the aid and all the legal questions there to sort of kind of wash over their kind of national security reputation. so i do think there's this other dimension of what's going on. >> so this might get branched out into two separate suits. mulvaney might give his own suit or file his own suit. >> right. >> if it's found that mulvaney has to testify or if it's found that kupperman has to testify, does that mean that everyone's going to have to testify? does a ruling for one apply to everybody? >> not necessarily. one of the other things that has been pointed out is that both bolton and kupperman, they say stand on different legal terrain because they no longer work for the president. >> yeah. >> and so that -- that could really make a big difference in terms of a judge drawing lines. mulvaney, of course, still works for the president and so the

principle that they're sort of wanting clarified here, whether the notion of absolute immunity shields any of them from having to comply with congressional subpoenas, you know, i think that you could have a very different outcome there. >> can i ask what your take is on that? whether absolute immunity applies to a government worker? >> yes. so i think that there's a pretty good argument to be made that the close or immediate advisors to the president enjoy some sort of immunity that is rooted in separation of powers but also allows a president to sort of seek advice, which we want presidents to be able to do freely without fear of sort of interference from the outside. so i do think that there is a constitutional basis for the argument. but like any -- any principle, there are limits. and what we've seen in this investigation is we really need to figure out where those limits are. >> robert tsai, robert, thank you very much for joining us.

>> it's my pleasure. >> next up, we've got breaking news. reports of another possible addition, another one, to the democratic race. addition, another one, to the demoatcric race. welcome to fowler, indiana. home to three of bp's wind farms. which, every day, generate enough electricity to power over 150,000 homes. and of course, fowler. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. and of course, fowler. old spice antipersprant spray and old spice antipersprant stick, each has different approchaes to armpits. but they do have one thing they can agree on. no sweat in the nfl hey, its just my name. brought to you by the 48-hour sweat defense of old spice sweat defense. and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. 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. investment opportunities beyfirsthand, like biotech.ne

because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price invest with confidence. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

(alarm beeping) welcome to our busy world. where we all want more energy. but with less carbon footprint. can we have both? at bp, we're working every day to make energy that's cleaner and better. and we see possibilities everywhere. enough, we've got some more breaking news, this time involving the potentially ever expanding democratic presidential field, just days after michael bloomberg shook things up signaling he's ready to jump into the democratic presidential field. now, new york times is reporting

that former massachusetts governor has told democratic officials that he is considering making a last-minute entry into the field as well. the times cites two democrats with knowledge of the conversations. when i read this tease, guys, the panel is back by the way, when i read this tease, i was like we talking about bloomberg? because this feels a bit old. and then i realized, no, duvall patrick just came out. he he's apparently told party leaders he doesn't think any of the kacandidates running have established political momentum. >> yeah. it sounds a lot like, in some ways, what michael bloomberg said. but i think we just have to -- i keep going back to the fact that voters have shown no indication of actually wanting more candidates. there was a usc los angeles times poll last week that came out on friday or thursday that showed that only 4% of voters were undecided because they didn't like the candidates involved. so if 96% of the democratic

primary electorate likes the field, i don't really see where there's room here. >> where is this idea coming from that voters aren't happy with the candidates and that someone else needs to come in to unite the party? >> i don't think this is a choice made because of what voters are thinking. i think people are looking at the field and figuring out, you know, what sections of the electorate they may pappeal to then building that coalition that could win. i think people are looking at those type of things and not necessarily thinking about what the voters may want. i do not want more candidates but the only reason why is because i think that we have a lot of good choices. and you have people in the race who are building that infrastructure who are raising money, and i feel like billionaires and and other folks just leapfrogging over all of the work people have been doing on the ground for these many months, i feel like part of that is unfair. these staffers, you're jumping in now, and elizabeth warren staffers and kamala harris staffers have been working. >> fair. no one says politics is fair. >> but it should be. should it be fair. >> hold on.

>> joe biden not coming out of the gates as strong as his poll numbers? he should have frankly more support right now. he should be seen as a more formidable candidate. and you see with his uncertainty, mayor bloomberg sees an opening. deval patrick sees an opening. >> but look at the polls. state by state. the swing state polls. joe biden is the only one of the candidates who can beat donald trump according to swing states' polls as of today. obviously that could change. is it fair to say that he doesn't have the support out there? i mean, he is doing better than everybody else. >> i think that joe biden would stand a really strong chance of beating donald trump if he can make it through this primary. can joe biden make it through this primary? that's the big question. that's why democrats are so shaky right now about having -- holding up for joe biden when he might not make it through and elizabeth warren is going to face significant obstacles going up against donald trump. >> let me ask this. does all of this turmoil, does

it mean anything for democratic chances? does it bode well for the party's ability to coalesce around itself in order to beat donald trump. >> you call it turmoil. i call it a primary. this is what happens. this is how you find who the nominee is. >> it's like 39 candidates out there. okay, fine. >> yes. this turmoil compared to the republican turmoil, the republicans had in 2016, it's a joke. the idea that this is some sort of crazy situation that's going on is just not borne out by reality. obviously, it's kind of an interesting thing going on that you have people thinking about jumping in so late. but the reality on the ground is some of these people have been organizing these states for well over six, seven, eight, nine, ten months. it's going to be really hard, no matter how much money you have, no matter how much name idea you have -- by the way, neither of these people have that much name idea -- to swoop in and capture the race. >> deval patrick has a chance? he works for bain capital right now. >> he could have been a very

formidable candidate earlier, as he had acknowledged and he may still be that. we shouldn't act as if he is going to jump into the race before the new hampshire deadline filing on the 15th and suddenly say this is mine to win circumstances it a forgone conclusion that elizabeth warren can't get the more established side of the democratic party? >> no, i don't think so. i think anybody in this -- >> or bernie sanders? >> in this particular race could attract different segments of the democratic electorate. also keep in mind we don't necessarily know what this electorate is going to look like, because we have higher turnout than we ever had before, and that includes in this democratic primary. that's why you see, you know, historic races and statewide legislators races in virginia, and you're seeing states that were historically red turn purple and now blue because younger people are voting. a more diverse electorate is taking shape, and that is what's going to, i think, make the difference in the 2020 election. so any candidate can appeal to the different segments, but they

have to understand that the essential element is the base of the party which is people of color. and unless they're doing that work first as the foundation, the rest doesn't really matter. >> how much is money going to come into play? you have tom steyer. you have michael bloomberg, two of the biggest democratic donors who want to be in the race. >> tom steyer, why would anyone be worried about him these days. >> the money. >> and mike bloomberg too. but say if a democratic nominee gets in the race that mike bloomberg is not going to support, and i would say that elizabeth warren or bernie sanders would be a democratic candidate that mike bloomberg isn't going to support, are you going to have those high level donors sitting out and becoming in effect the sleeper trump voters that wouldn't admit to pollsters that they were actually going to vote for donald trump? >> we will seattle. gabe, zerlina and elise, thanks very much. ahead, a moment of gratitude. itude.

itude. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ what do we wburger...inner? i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved.

so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

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.

♪ this is veterans day. all around the country, americans are paying tribute to our men and women in uniform. in new york city, president trump and the first lady took part in the city's annual veterans day parade, promising that america will honor its commitment to those who serve.

>> to every veteran here today and all across our land, you are america's greatest living heroes and we will cherish you now, always, and forever. >> vice president pence attended the arlington national cemetery ceremony, often attended by presidents, laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier. the 2020 candidates also spent the day celebrating our troops. pete buttigieg, a veteran himself, attended a ceremony at a veteran's cemetery in new hampshire, and joe biden marked the occasion at a veteran's memorial in delaware. bernie sanders met with veterans and seniors at a town hall in iowa today, and kamala harris sat down with vets for a conversation in south carolina. republicans and democrats united today in honoring those who fight for america. we should all take a moment today to set aside politics, to consider what we have as a nation and whom we have to thank. to celebrate patriotism -- i'm sorry, to celebrate patriotism,

to honor sacrifice, and to be grateful for those who serve. that is all for tonight. with le be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, katy. amen and thank you, as always. we begin "the beat" with breaking impeachment news. brand-new testimony tonight from an impeachment witness that has just come out alleging evidence of bribery. a pentagon official telling congress about trump appointees pushing for ukraine to commit to prosecuting election interference and tieing that back to the now infamously frozen usa money and the aide confirming yes, that's what the plot was. the testimony going public right now as mick mulvaney is asking a judge today to determine if he can testify against trump in the impeachment probe. if it sounds odd that trump's top aide is now trying to sue trump, it is odd, and i have a special breakdown on all of that coming up that we've been working on all day.