trump's west wing on the eve of the impeachment proceeding against the president probably isn't a good omen. the "washington post," front page story reads, quote, the white house's bifurcated and disjointed response to democrats' impeachment inquiry has been fueled by a fierce west wing battle between two of president trump's top advisers. that's according to white house and congressional officials. quote, in the three years of his election, mr. trump has never been accused of running a cohesive, unified team. but the revolutions in the last few days have put on display more starkly than ever the fissures tearing at his administration. in the emerging picture the trump white house is a toxic

stew of personality disputes, policy differences, political rivalries, ethical debates and a fundamental rift over the president himself. chief of staff mick mulvaney and pat vallone. from the white house "washington post," quote, mulvaney's office blames white house counsel pat cipollone for not doing more to stop other government officials from participating in the impeachment inquiry. in oethe other corner, meanwhil cipollone fumed that mulvaney only made matters worse with his october 17 news conference, when he publicly acknowledged a quid pro quo, essentially confirming democrats' accusations in front of television cameras and reporters. cipollone did not want mulvaney to hold the news conference.

the fight for power between the two aides, and, quote, the body of evidence shows instead that president trump holds a deep-seated, genuine and reasonable skepticism of ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption. not long after that was written, president trump blew up, saying the pressure on ukraine was only about getting dirt on the bidens. he tweeted, ifr an obligation to look into corruption, and biden's actions. both bidens should be forced to testify in this no due process

scam. fill ruck phil rucker is here, former u.s. attorney joyce vance, also former u.s. attorney and social editor, amy is here, some of our closest repo historic day. phil rucker, take us through it. >> nicolle, i don't think anybody would be surprised to hear that it is chaotic and disruptive, and indeed, it is chaotic. they can't get on the front page and this has been going on for two weeks since the impeachment inquiry first began. there was an effort to provide efforts on capitol hill and weren't armed with the information they need to do so, and now you're seeing the split between the white house chief of staff and the white house counsel. those are the two most important figures in the impeachment defense of the president and of the administration who can't get

on the same page, have been rivals now for several months and building, and those tensions are exacerbating just at the moment when the president needs them to come together and unite to defend his very presidency, which is at stake starting tomorrow. >> i know from being in the white house, it had a lot of political challenges and that holding republicans' support on capitol hill is about projecting more stability than exists in a white house. >> and strength. >> more stability and strength than exists in a white house. but to have donald trump at war over the two most damaging things that have happened to donald trump since this scandal began is more than just a fight over who gets the talking points every morning. >> yeah, it sure is, and it goes to the heart of the claim here and what exactly it is they're trying to defend the president against doing. originally it was, no, no, there was no quid pro quo. then mulvaney told the world there was, then he said there wasn't, now the president said

there was, and they can't seem to figure out how to defend the president. now we're seeing in this republican memo that has come out today that the argument is about the president's state of mind. can you prove that he had culpability? can you prove that in his mind he wanted to commit wrongdoing? >> but they're not on trial. >> this is a political process. >> right, this is a political process. all they have to do -- this is where they're missing their opportunity to be trumpy. this is not a criminal proceeding. you do not have to, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove criminal intent. they were not hemmed in by the things that restrained them in the mueller probe, and they're doing worse. let's just go through who is in each corner here. mick mulvaney is the white house chief of staff, so i think technically on an org chart probably the most powerful person, but they never made him such. he is an acting and i think he has a couple other jobs.

but he is the person who went out and confessed to one of the claims at the heart of the abuse of power charge, if that's one of the counts of obstruction, right? >> right. he confessed and then he unconfessed. >> sort of. >> sort of. what the republican strategy seems to be now makes some sense to me. pick something and stick with it. you're absolutely right, nicolle, it's not a criminal trial, they don't have to prove intent, they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. but to phil's point, there was no quid pro quo, it lacked transparency, fine. when you see something, stick with it. that is an indicator that there is no defense. >> that's why cipollone is mad at mulvaney, and he seems to have a point there, but cipollone, we learned in some reporting last week in the "new york times," told his deputy, go talk to the president about that transcript if you're worried

that there is some wrongdoing. neither one is conducting themselves with any sort of clear moral authority. >> the problem is they really don't have a leg to stand on here, and this entire house of cards falls apart if people start talking about, for instance, the president's tweet today and this notion that, well, he didn't have the state of mind that would have been a guilty or corrupt state of mind to engage in investigating corruption and investigating the bidens. and if, in fact, that's true and there was a case there to be investigated, then great. call the fbi. you have the premiere law enforcement agency in the world just down the street on pennsylvania avenue. why are you bribing the ukranians? >> that's such a good point. if there was anything aboveboard here, a.b., donald trump as the president has at his disposal the cia, the fbi, the nsa, the state department -- there were ways to investigate corruption. a former doj official told me

five weeks ago, go find me a single example of donald trump caring about obstruction in any time zone anywhere on the planet earth. >> this is the problem, is that it didn't take the tweet today for him to say, no, no, it's generally about my potential most difficult electable rival in the 2020 election. donald trump told us on television that he wanted china to investigate the bidens, he told us a lot about this. and when asked about an example in the country of ukraine or anywhere else, he hasn't been able to come up with an example. he actually didn't want an investigation of biden. he wanted the president of ukraine to go on cnn and say there was an investigation into joe biden to smear him and ruin him politically. i think we're getting really involved in the day-to-day, the kind of things jim jordan wants

to throw around, in the memo "axios" got on the crazy things they're going to say, which are all rebuttable easily. but remember, this is a broad conspiracy, people conspiring to either be involved in this plot with rudy and the president or to cover their rear ends at the highest levels of government. mick mulvaney and deeply exposed, mike pompeo is deeply exposed. vice president pence is deeply exposed. this is a problem for republicans. it's not just that the president tweets out a different defense when they try to stay on one, it's that this is a very, very broad operation and people are culpable all over the top of the executive branch. mike pompeo gave the state department over to rudy giuliani. we're not talking about how broad and deep this runs. other people will be in trouble.

so talking about a july 25th phone call, rudy giuliani has been working on this since 2018 and early 2019. >> and talking about it on fox news. >> telling us. and the president when he was elected was terrified immediately about what this meant between ukraine and the united states. what house republicans want us to do right now this week is stay in the weeds about these little things, about this witness or this testimony or whatever. but you have to step back, and the democrats are really failing to message this and talk about it this way and see how deep this runs in the government. when rick perry was sent to the inaugural delegation for president zelensky instead of mike pence, that was a huge snub. mike pence knew he was supposed to take that trip, but all of a sudden he wasn't taking that trip. so he's known very far well into this calendar events, and

they're all, like i said, coupled because they were either engiaged with mulvaney or they knew about it. >> let's put the weeds aside. we will get to them because those republican talking points deserve to be rebulttted. let me bring you in, jordan. the president, plainly and obviously, repeatedly over several months, abused his office for no purpose other than the political mission of some bizarre fixation on the 2016 election result, an allegation about ukraine that tom bossert, homeland security director, tried to beat out of his poison mind. his mind is described as poison with multiple news organizations with this conspiracy theory. a smear against marie yavonovitch, lifelong career

diplomat, and the extortion of military aid trying to defend itself against russia. what is the sort of, you know, with the cameras off, mindset about what's going to start tomorrow? >> i think we should just set aside that memo because it's basically an 18-page press release. no member of congress -- i can pretty much guarantee you not one member of the committee has read that in total or in part. it's just a way to get their message out to a broader audience. that's number one. number two, i can't tell you what we said in "politico," remember when we started? what would politicians say if we put them on truth serum? what members of the committee and house republicans tell me over and over again is that they don't want to talk about the substance because they don't understand the totality of the substance, so they talk about other issues. that's important to keep in mind because that's what they were doing here. first it was process, then it's questioning the motive of

witnesses, then it's questioning whether they have firsthand knowledge of certain decisions. you're going to hear people talk about whether the president talked to bill taylor. we know he hasn't talked to some of these diplomats and they still carried out his orders. another thing is republicans thought they had an offramp here. they thought they were able to say, what the president did here was wrong, it made me uncomfortable, but it was not impeachable. you saw that at the top level of the party, then the president blew that up. you have house republicans going into this hearing tomorrow completely in a l completely, in a lot of republicans' views and the leadership, completely unprepared for what's going on here because they are not able to defend the white house as a substantive matter. many of them, not all of them, many of them, so they have to rely on these side issues. we know what the end game is, pretty much. we know the president is going to be impeached by the house. we don't know it with 100%

certainty, we know it with 5% certainty. i would argue, and maybe i'll argue this tomorrow in the playbook, is that the polls aren't going to move much. the polls right now mirror where america is. as we go into tomorrow, tomorrow will become fodder for campaign ads, important for the senate as they consider this in the next weeks and months. we saw senator berger say this is a very historic moment. the republicans do not feel they're going in adequately prepared for what will be a very prepared, very intent and very focused democratic majority. >> let me just challenge a couple of the pillars of prediction, because i'm scarred from 2016. i'm out of the prediction business. >> and i tried to not be in it, too, but i just slipped into it. >> but the polls, we do not have

very many events in this country. i can think of the olympics, i can think of the christine tes. we don't always know when something is viewed -- you know, the super bowl, we do not have many news events that is broadcast wall to wall in what's called roadblock coverage. is there a contingency plan in case when people see -- i believe there are two purple heart recipients, an iraq war veteran, diplomats. people were recruited by mike pompeo. people will not see that witness on the stand. there will be no one that donald trump would dare to take their 130,000 there are salary to

work. sl any sense on capitol hill that the underneath them? sdplz this is, there is that sense, but allowing that for presentation would have to be someone who could sing outside the realm of donald trump. this is not a criticism, but we've soon,ly steven scalise, liz cheney, they have not criticized the president much here. i'm not really sure what the fallback plans could or would be. you might break off some of the. fwhooefr seen anything this and democrats are choosing these witnesses because they're not political. but the top of the republican conference does not anticipate much breakage even after these

next couple weeks. it might be famous last words, but that's the reality they see right now going into tomorrow. remember who is going to be doing the questioning here. it's going to be basically adam schiff and his counsel versus devin nunez and his counsel. that's important to keep in mind, very different styles, very different politicians who will be performing this massive, massive hearing. >> that's for transferable. being ve-- for four nights, eac side watches their own convention. each side watches their own primary debate and millions of people watch the general election. that's what television looks like in this did you not. >> and none of them feature the

kinds of people that are witnesses in donald trump's impeachment. these are not people who campaigned, these are not people who probably regularly vote. they probably don't wear in the midterm -- the country has not seen a trial. he commissioned an investigation into the bidens is a life long story where gordon sondland was involved. those sec transcripts, those weren't people for obama, those to see that. >> even though they're experts in their field, they're not testifying as experts. they're like the guy standing in the bank lobby when it gets robbed. they saw something, heard something. or maybe they heard something

from someone who heard something. they're just there to -- what really fasth natures is he, will they pick a theory, we will get undercut from our dread ibcredi. when we tried cases as federal prosecutors, the best defenders picked a theme and stuck with it. you heard it on opening, you heard it in closing. you heard it on cross, you heard it on direct. you'll hear the same theme throughout. and if they're not, then you have nothing. >> it seems like one side has

prepared itself with fact witnesses who don't have a party. but they literally sold themselves to donald trump. the same gop menu said, on those substanc substances, they haven't prepared anything donald trump cares about. i don't even know how to articulate how potentially screwed republicans are. >> you would think, right? but so far they have survived pretty well for some reason. chuck's point is an interesting one rpgs -- so an interesting thing to point out tomorrow is how chuck treats these witnesses. juries in a criminal setting don't like it, whether it's

prosecutors or defense lawyers, when they treat witnesses badly if the sdwrir likes them. so in this mess, the republicans released. >> everyone reads ltd we read it there. sdplz and this is on the multiple that will republicans try to portray these career diplomats who have served their country abroad in different postings, if they try to portray them adds democrats, who knows where the dp might be at. >> is that your breaking point? >> i don't think president trump is showing any kind many but

he's expecting them to go to the mat as perfect, 10s% it. come back, sherman. talk us through what is going on this r. it looks like the president has a new target to plame for the whistleblower kplachblt we'll get also ahead, explosive m msnbc writing. u.s. turkish relations, suggesting that the president has business or finl, saying trump is tough on russia and describing the president who has

made against p-- them against him. -- them against him.

we're back with breaking news from the "new york times" that could have implications for donald trump's impeachment. donald trump, based on a new report in "the times" has considered firing the inspector general, the one who looked at the whistleblower's complaint on donald trump's ukraine conduct and deemed it credible and urgent. from that article, president trump has discussed dismissing the inspector general, mr. atkinson, because mr. atkinson reported a whistleblower's

complaint about president trump's interactions to ukraine to congress after concluding it was credible, according to four people familiar with the discussions. mr. trump first expressed his dismay about mr. atkinson around the time the whistleblower's complaint became public in september. in recent weeks, he has continued to raise with aides the possibility of firing him, one of the people said. the president has said i does not understand why mr. atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how mr. trump asked the ukranian president to investigate mr. trump's political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. he has said he believes mr. atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, should be let go.

let me read a little more from this report. the mixture of public attacks and private discussions about a possible dismissal is a familiar way mr. trump has undermined investigators who have examined his conductor that of people close to him. the president publicly criticized james comey, the fbi director, ask and james sessions before he dismissed him. when do the public decide that mob boss is not a good luck? >> i've gotten used to disappointment. but what you're seeing here is a slow motion saturday night massacre. this is not that surprising when you think about it, because the president wants to discredit or remove anyone who challenges him within the administration. i think he believes at a very fundamental level that everyone who works for the executive branch should be working for him, should be loyal for him. this gives you a bit of a flavor what a post-acquittal donald

trump would be like, that he actually thinks he has the right and the power, and this is a good thing for him, to clear out anyone who would challenge. >> i think the other thing it reveals is he knows it was wrong. i think when you see him today saying it was a perfect call, if he was trying to fire the inspector general from the intelligence community, he knows he did something criminal. >> look, who knows what donald trump knows or whether or not he has a sense of right and wrong. i think this whole discussion of his state of mind suggests that perhaps the president of the united states cannot distinguish right from wrong. if this was a president that was absolutely confident of his behavior, why would he be obstructing this investigation? why wouldn't he be saying, everyone who knows anything should be testifying in flurontf congress. if there are aides who can exonerate him, he should be welcoming this investigation. the fact that he is, in fact, covering this up would suggest

that ends it's problematic. >> i still have the capacity for surprise and i think it's a shocking thing to read. if you're just joining us, breaking news in the "new york times" in the last 20 minutes, president trump suggested firing the inspector general from the intelligence community. we should talk about what the inspector general is and does. he's a trump appointee. he got this whistleblower complaint. he didn't just fax it to congress. he went and investigated the actions, corroborated them, deemed the complaint credible and urgent. and after the acting dni had been on the job about 28 days, called first the justice department and the white house and delayed this complaint, i think, beyond the statutory window where they're supposed to transmit it. only then did it go. this went about as slowly and with as many breaks on it as a complaint can go. >> slowly and properly. it may be helpful to know that there are inspectors general throughout the federal government in agencies large and small. if you recall, when jim comey,

before he was fired for disloyalty, he had asked the inspector general to look at his conduct, because jim comey knew what inspectors do and how they're useful. we don't always agree with their findings, we quibble, we quarrel, but we respect what they do because they're an independent body. mr. trump misunderstands this process. people like mr. atkinson, people like bob mueller, people who don't make a lot of money but are guided by someone other than the president. >> i just don't care if he misunderstands. then he's not fit to be president of the united states. it's an amazing process because now he's blown the whistleblower distraction up, because now he said if he wants to fire atkinson, the whistleblower complaint really is the bulk of

it. the impeachment process started with the whistleblower. they wanted to keep hounding on the whistleblower, but now we've blown that up to get michael hackins in the driver's seat. i failed to mention william barr who acted on a referral from the cia. when she sent it, he said later he ignored it because it wasn't put in writing, it was only told over the phone. this entire thing, as you said, was investigated by atkinson but that has been cooperated by anybody else. i'm just waiting, charlie, for our friends did pick up for inspectors general this afternoon. >> he wants to know why can't everyone in the administration be like bill barr? >> bill barr's side is

investigating lev parnas and fruman. let me read a little of this so far. i think it's a stunning development, especially on the eve of impeachment. we have a summary of a transcript of a call the white house released and then locked down in a lock box of their own making, whatever the heck it was. and now we have this, that donald trump sought to fire the inspector general who corroborated and then transmitted the whistleblower complaint. trump discussed dismissing michael atkinson because atkinson discussed the interaction with ukraine and mr. trump expressed dismay around the time the whistleblower's complaint became public in september in recent weeks. as this has gone on -- so it's not just firing him to keep this from being transmitted to congress, he wants to fire as retribution.

>> as retribution for perceived loyalty. it fits his pattern, nicolle, where anyone in the government, especially in the justice department or with an accountability function of their jobs, if they take any position that the trump foresees, and the mueller vorlreport. at times he wanted to get rid of mueller and it's just another example in that pattern. >> and they really feared that the effort or the act of firing mueller represented the most grave legal peril to donald trump. so there has to be some concern. there has to be some alarm that

may simply manifest itself as a furrowed brow at this point. there were 50 points for impeachment. the testimony has come out, but people haven't seen or heard from these officials yet. this has to be troubling to this can't put the toothpaste back into -- the whistleblower complaint is out there, it's already been transmitted to congress, there is nothing that can be reversed here, so it's purely the president fuming over this situation he finds himself in which we know he's wouldnnt o and looking for ways to blame other people, create fall on men and women, and strike back. >> you think about the lasting damage to the republican party, probably just the three of us, and it's dangerous to do that without something stronger than paurt in the cup, but the lasting damage to the republican

party would seem to be exacerbated by stories like this. now the republicans, if they don't see to it to at least consider this impeachment proceeding, to at least consider conviction, then his power includes firing as retribution independent watchdogs. >> that's what's so amazing about the information charlie raised, the idea we think trump is unleashed now post-acquittal, post-election, what the republican party has normalized for him, has said it's okay. the guardrails he's broken and they've looked away. i was actually impressed a bunch of them stepped up for the whistleblower being protected ten days ago, and i'm going to be looking to see what they say about mr. atkinson. it's true, this entire ukraine scandal is about him interfering in next year's election.

that's why you can't wait for next year's election because he will interfere more. >> and if he fires all the inspectors general, we might not find out about the next one. >> that's right. >> go ahead. >> there's so much sunken cost. they ever gone along with so much, they have ruined so much of their reputations, they have pretzeled themselves into rash explanations. keep your head down and just get through all of this. >> let me just add, not to both sides this from my vantage point, but it was, i believe, the icig who made the referral for hillary clinton's emails. i do not remember president obama or attorney general lynch talking about firing anybody. this starts to feel normal. this is not normal. other people have been investigated by inspectors general from the intelligence committee and they didn't talk about firing them. >> the real danger for trump,

though, is that there will be more whistleblowers who will come out. the one thing weav've seen is ts management by humiliation. >> he better not start firing them. >> look who has come forward from the administration and started testifying. this is a president who has humiliated people, who has ignored people, who has fired people, and all of a sudden these ghosts have come back and we'll see them on television in the impeachment hearing. if he does something like this, yes, there is hostility within the intelligence community, but he's going to be concerned with what he's going to be concerned with. but this could inspire more blowback, more things coming out. and again, it's not the republicans in congress that i'm looking at, it's like the people in the administration who will say, we're done with this, we are going to stand up and put our careers on the line and testify. >> really quick. >> it can have two effects. that's absolutely one of them, but to the extent the president is a four-year-old and that his

signals are going out throughout the entire government, it can intimidate people. i think it can have two effects. some will be cowed, some will step forward. we are incredibly odd by the ones who step forward, but i wonder how that breaks. >> and i wonder where richard burr is today, feel come out and speak on behalf of this icig. after the break, exclusive reporting from my colleagues. what mick mulvaney thinks about ivanka trump as well as the president's thoughts on policy. president's thoughts on policy oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine

for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

- [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. ♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat. and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now?

whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! it nice?ce. this is the most-awarded minivan three years in a row. the van just talked. sales guy, give 'em the employee price, then gimme your foot. hands-free sliding doors, stow 'n go seats, man, y'all getting a hook up and y'all don't even work here. pacificaaaaa! when john bolton left his role as national security adviser in september, he said, quote, i'll have my say in due course. as of now, he's not having his say to congressional investigators in the impeachment probe. he remains an unapproachable witness, and at a private speech

last week, he spoke out harshly against his former boss and his former boss' family. quote, he derided president donald trump's daughter and son-in-law and suggested his former boss' approach to u.s. policy on turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, several people who were present for the remarks told nbc news. according to six people who were there, bolton also questioned the merits of trump applying his business acumen to foreign policy, saying such issues can't be approached like the woirn loseie dictionary th edict that estate deals. >> john bolton gave this speech to a bunch of hedge fund managers. he was told he was off the record and he should feel free to speak candidly, and he did.

he said a number of things that, frankly, even people who were in the audience were shocked about, particularly, as you mentioned, the reference to the president's daughter and his son-in-law, jared kushner and ivanka trump. and they said that he said it with a sort of eye-rolling way that suggested that, you know, they were -- that he derided or had some disdain for their role in the white house. and what he said was, you know, if trump were to win reelection in january 2021 and is unleashed, one of the things he could do is jared and ivanka will try to get him to rewrite his legacy and they'll convince him to nominate some super liberal to the supreme court. and then he also took aim at rand paul and said in that same scenario, it's 2021, and president trump has won another term, that trump would pivot to the rand paul faction of the party, go full isolationist in his foreign policy and could withdraw from nato and other international alliances.

and then he really -- >> whoa, whoa, stop right there. this is amazing, and on a normal day, we would have led this broadcast with this story. but let me just hit pause and let's stipulate latea couple th. you know john bolton, i worked with john bolton in the administration. this is not his first rodeo. while he was obviously aware of the fact this was closed press, meaning people like you and me weren't in there with our notebooks and cameras, he knew he was in a crowd of people he did not know. what do you think it means that he is -- those are serious warnings to conservatives. if you are a conservative, a an john bolton is warning you that jared and ivanka will basically get -- i think he named a name, right, lawrence tripe he will appoint if he's given a second term. and the warning about nato, give me a little more on that. that's unbelievable. >> the nato piece is actually

significant, because john bolton served for president trump, he's been in and around these issues for a really long time, he's steeped in them, and the idea that he genuinely believes that president trump may pull out of nato, which has been talked about for some time, but it hasn't really gotten serious traction, is really significant. and i think one of the things that people in the room said is that he repeatedly mentioned his book. so he's writing a book. and he was teasing these things to suggest that there is going to be a lot more in his book. so he obviously has very strong views. he has for a long time on certain policies, and he obviously has very strong views on some of the things that he saw. particularly on the turkey piece, it's remarkable that john bolton would say or suggest -- he didn't understand what was motivating him on his turkey policy because no one on his team agreed with him about it. we know they differed on this

issue, but to suggest he was driven by his personal or business motivations is pretty remarkable. >> look, car lean, it's also in line with what brett mcgirk, who was trying to release i.c.e. said, it was on the call. president erdogan, coincidentally, will be at the white house tomorrow. it sounds like john bolton was alleging there was some kind of turkish corruption in the u.s.-turkey relationship. we know on policies he came down campaign.ving the taliban at he was clearly not comfortable or not a fan of dissidents' attacks on nato. he spent his career working on non-proliferation of russia, so i can't imagine he was a fan of

donald trump's love for putin. he was uncomfortable with what drove donald trump to basically give a green light to erdogan for that operation. >> i think it just baffled him of all the positions the president was taking, according to people who heard his speech, he said that one frustrated him the most, the turkey issue. if you recall, after president trump had that december 2018 phone call with erdogan where he then announced he was going to pull all troops out of syria, john bolton was the one who went around -- i traveled with him on that trip. he went to israel and he went to unkura, and he was there to kind of clean it up. he said, no, we're not leaving until iran is out of syria. he set a very bright red line and that angered the turks and president trump canceled the meeting with president erdogan. he shows at times that he disagrees, but i think you're right hitting on the fact that this is either personal or

finance or business related is just a very significant piece of information from him. given all that he sees and knows. >> carlene, that was great reporting. nikki haley reveals whether she is a trump supporter or trump spinner. she revealed trump as a truthful leader. that's up next. a truthful leader that's up next ♪ limu emu & doug hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ if you're stayingcessful businessat holiday inn.is easy, saturpain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills,

or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. make family-sized meals fast, and because it's a ninja foodi, it can do things no other oven can, like flip away. the ninja foodi air fry oven, the oven that crisps and flips away.

did you ever have any doubt about the fitness of this president to serve? >> i never did. >> any doubt about his mental acuity? >> i never did. >> his truthfulness, his ability to tell the truth? >> savannah, i talked to him multiple times and ooh when i had issues, he always heard me out. i never had any concern on whether he could handle the job, ever. >> what about his truthfulness, did you think he was a truthful person? >> yes. in every instance i dealt with him, he was truthful, he listened and he was great to work with. >> the washington post counter over 11,000 lies? >> 13. >> people lie calling him truthful. >> it's higher than 11,000, just like that. >> 13,435 lies in 993 days. >> ambassador haley has clearly made a decision here where she will tie herself to truch and that's the politician calculation going forward. she aspires to office again some

day. >> she wants pence's job? >> she said she's too young to quit fighting which means 2024 she'll probably run for president and rightfully so she probably can't get elected as the nominee of her party if she turns on trump completely. i don't know what's in her heart. i don't know if what she really believes. we can see today what she's telling people she believes today. >> you know what's amazing about this? >> so many things. >> yeah, so many things. when she left the administration, she was one of the few people who had their reputation intact. she could have sat this out. she didn't have to come forward. >> i totally agree with you. >> it is completely voluntarily, gratuitous, but she's making the bet that the future of the republican party is going to be trumpian and that if you want to have a future in this party, you have to bond yourself to him as closely as possible. at this particular moment. because unlike some of the other

senators she's not facing a primary. she doesn't have to worry about tweets. she could have just sat this out, campaigned for re-election and then moved on. it is an amazing moment. the contrast between her and john bolton is so dramatic. he is all out of bleeps to give. he is looking at a president that is erratic, corrupt and dangerous. she has seen some of the same things and decided she's not only not going to break bad on drump donald trump but drop a dime on other officials who express concern. i'm pessimistic whether there's a breaking point for conservative conservatives, nikki haley is supposed to be the great hope for the future of the party and this is the calculation she's making right now. >> i made the mistake, nicole, of listening to what she said. the last three things she said, that he was truthful? nope. that he listens well. nope. and that he was great to work for. nope. and so i think to charlie's point --

>> three out of three. >> or 0 for 3, depending how you want to count it. nobody like that, to anybody who cares about the truth, has any candor, has any credibility going forward. >> and she has seen all the videos for herself of 2016 when she's standing by marco rubio, saying that the president is a liar and she teaches her kids, back then, not to be like candidate trump. it's interesting what charlie says. it makes you question the timing. she could have written a super trump book next year when he got re-elected and jumped on board then. why now? >> she also defended him on impeachment. i understand the political calculation. what i don't understand, even kondi rice, who donald trump has tweeted his support of, said what he did with ukrainians is not appropriate. she defended it. that will be her legacy. she'll take that to the voters if she runs. we'll have sneak in our last break and be right back. in ourt break and be right back. let me ,

i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior,

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

we ran out of times. thanks to phil rubbinger, and the rest of my panel. special coverage of impeachment hearings begins tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. brian williams will be here for the duration. that does it for this hour. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. welcome to tuesday. it's ""meet the press" daily." i'm chuck todd. we're hours away from the start of impeachment public hearings. the defense of the president is essentially if he did it, so what? republicans aren't disputing that president asked ukraine to help him investigate biden nor