compare and contrast that with ambassador taylor and compare and contrast that with most of the democrats. there was not the grandstanding. >> it was calm. it was factual. and meanwhile both ratcliffe and jim jordan had it turned up to volume 10. >> 11. [ laughter ] >> whatever it was, it was too darn loud. >> think about jordan and what ratcliffe were asking for. they started by saying we shouldn't be having these hearings at all. in which we saw these two fantastic gentlemen testify in which we learned how important ukraine was, how important the aid was and of course the second phone call that ambassador taylor talked about. they wanted the american people to have none of this. that all should've been secret. >> the hour has arrived 4:00 p.m. eastern time. >> and you have another hour to prepare for us. i hear you are going to

skedaddle. >> so it's 4:00 in new york and as the dust is still settling after the dramatic first day of public testimony into the impeachment inquiry for the first time we saw the story of donald trump's conduct with ukraine spelled out in plain english on live television, bill taylor and george kent, two career dip gnalomats with decadf public service between them. pressure against a foreign government for politically motivated investigations. the offending of long-standing u.s. foreign policy in ukraine and the withholding of critical life-saving military aid. a brand-new revelation from ambassador taylor. a phone call overheard between the president and gordon sondland who was one of the so-called three amigos behind donald trump's pressure campaign in which trump is heard asking gordon sondland about investigations. here is that brand-new account from ambassador bill taylor. >> last friday, a member of my

staff told me of events that occurred on july 26th. while ambassador volker and i visited the front, a member of my staff accompanied ambassador sondland. ambassador sondland met with mr. yerbak. following that meeting at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. amino acid sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump, the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden which giuliani was pressing for. at the time i gave my deposition on october 22nd, i was not aware of this information. i am including it here for completeness as the committee

knows i reported this information through counsel to the state department's legal adviser as well as to counsel for both the majority and the minus of this committee. it is my understanding that the committee is following up on this matter. >> it's brand-new information, brand-new evidence tying a direct line to donald trump. in response from republicans and often red-faced attempt at rebuttal to what was without question a credible and damaging barrage of evidence which at its outset centered on a smear of the career officials. one of them a decorated vietnam veteran. the other one a career public servant. >> what we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the democrats. ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i like to welcome you here. i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star chamber editions held in the last weeks of the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed witting or

unwittingly to participate in a drama. but the main performance a russia hoax, has ended. and you've been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. >> as to respond to the smears against their character, here is george kent and bill taylor leading by example. >> mr. kent, are you a never-trumper? >> i am a career nonprofessional who serves whatever president is duly elected and carries out the foreign policies of that president in the united states. i've done that for 27 years for three republican democrats and two democrat presidents. >> ambassador taylor, are you a never-trumper? >> no, sir. >> to help us unpack an explosive day of testimony that we heard on capitol hill, conservative attorney george conway, neal katyal, claire mccaskill. plus a guest we haven't heard from yet today, former chief of

staff for the cia and department of defense. >> i think there is a foundational question that was presented here today which is is it okay for an american president to demand that a foreign government official investigate the american president's political rival. president trump and his allies present a clear defense. they say, yeah, it's okay, it's fine with us. there is nothing to see here, just read the transcript. he did it but it's not impeachable. there really is no dispute about the facts. i think as this procedure -- >> jeremy, let's dip in and listen to chairman schiff who just started speaking to reporters. >> ukraine, a deep and abiding interest in ukraine and its future and its prospects. the portrait that i think their testimony paints is one of an irregular channel that ran from the president through mick mulvaney, ambassador sondland, ambassador volker, on down to

rudy giuliani, in which the president sought to advance his political and personal interests at the expense of united states national security. and the president did that by pressing this vulnerable ally to get involved in the next presidential election in a way the president thought would advance his re-election prospects. did so by inviting zelensky to do these political investigations. and more than that did so by conditioning a white house meeting as well as ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid needed by this ally. now, a couple points on the white house meeting and on the military aid. this was a new and politically inexperienced president of ukraine with a lot of promise who ran a campaign based on ending the conflict in ukraine with the russians, but also

fighting corruption. it was i think a euphoric time for ukrainians to have this reformer as their president. it was important, as we heard today, that this new president could demonstrate to friend and foe alike to his countrymen but also his adversary the russians that he had a strong relationship with the president of the united states. a white house meeting is one of the best ways to demonstrate that. and so this is something zelensky clearly wanted and came back to time after time. and his people kept asking when are we going to get that meeting that you said we would get. time and time again the answer came back we first want you to commit to these political investigations to help the president's re-election campaign, and we want you to do it publicly. and then we would learn, as they learned and as they testified that not only was this meeting conditioned but also this

military aid at a time when ukrainians were dying every week. and so we will hear other witnesses, i think, who will corroborate much of what you heard today. today allowed you to hear from ukraine, from ambassador taylor's perspective and from the view from washington from mr. kent's perspective. other witnesses will fill in some of the pieces before, after, and during. but we don't expect the facts are largely going to be contested. there wasn't much of an effort by the republicans today to contest these facts. ultimately what we will need to decide and what i hope members on both sides of the aisle in the house and if necessary in the senate, what i hope members will think about is what do these facts mean for the future of our country, what do these facts mean in terms of what americans should expect from a president of the united states. are we prepared to say that

asking a foreign nation to intervene in our elections is something that is a perk of the office of the presidency? are we prepared to say that conditioning taxpayer funded military assistance to an ally that is fighting a fight in which we have a deep stake is also now a perk of the office of the presidency. are we now going to say that other official acts can be conditioned on another country giving something of value to the president of the united states is just now going to be the new normal for the president of the united states. i don't think we can allow that to be the new normal acceptable in any way, shape, or form, or it will not only permit this president to seek other ways to bring about interference in our election but it will invite future presidents to do the same. so we have some very difficult questions to answer at the end

of the day about what these facts require us to do. but you will be hearing shortly from other witnesses who i think will corroborate much of what you heard today. with that i am happy to answer a couple questions. >> what do you make of the new information today that he presented to the committee that taylor's aid overheard this phone call with gordon sondland and the president? and secondly do you believe that gordon sondland would testify -- about his interactions with the president? >> well, first of all in terms of the new information that ambassador taylor gave today about this conversation the day after president trump is on the phone with president zelensky in which one of ambassador taylor's staff is overhearing conversation between sondland and the president, and the president's speaking loud enough where he can hear part of the conversation. and the president is interested in whether the ukrainians are going to do the investigation. and sondland assures him that they are. this is obviously very important because there is an effort to

apparently to throw sondland under the bus, throw mulvaney under the bus in an effort to protect the president. but what this call indicates as other testimony has likewise indicated is that instructions are coming from the president on down. mick mulvaney made that abundantly clear in his press conference. but this call also makes it abundantly clear. and i think ambassador taylor made it abundantly clear when taylor testified that he wanted sondland to push back on trump's demand for these investigations. that is not asking sondland to change his view. it's asking sondland to help change the president's view, the president's demand. and so i think this witness is potentially very important. and of course we are moving to dispose this witness and we have already scheduled their deposition. >> the last question. [ inaudible question ] >> look.

i'm reserving judgment on the ultimate questions once the testimony is complete about what should follow from this, what are the consequences. it is certainly the case that the founders were deeply concerned that a president of the united states one day may be elected to office that would put his or her interests above the country, that would sacrifice our national security either to get a political personal favor or owing to some foreign influence. so the facts that have come to light are very much what the founders had in mind i think when they provided a remedy. so we are going to have to make that decision. i am not prejudging it. the only thing i will say because i didn't answer the second part of your question in terms of ambassador sondland. one of the reasons why we want to do these hearings now in public having done the deposition in closed session is we want the american people to be able to evaluate the

credibility of the witnesses for themselves. and i'm confident that they will. >> jeremy bash, ambassador schiff there underscoring that new development today, that new piece of evidence entered into the record by ambassador taylor about a phone call from the president to his e.u. ambassador political appointee gordon sondland where he is calling to ask about the investigations, the investigations into burisma in 2016 is and then the reflection from gordon sondland that all he cares about is the investigations. >> yeah. i think this new fact is relevant because, again, what's at question? what's at question is the president's own conduct. it wasn't that aides were scam perring around trying to satisfy the president. it's the president made clear not only his desire but his demand. he made clear his ultimatum.

he told gordon sondland they will not get everything from washington. they won't get a white house visit. they won't get military aid unless they investigate my political rival. so the only question on the table i think out of today's hearing is, is that okay. is that okay, members of congress, if you are okay with that, if that's all right with you, then i think that's the republicans' defense. but i think democrats are rightly sounding an alarm today about what that means for the future of our democracy, what that means for american national security to have a president of the united states conduct that foreign policy in that fashion. >> there is something very clarifying about it. sometimes in a scandal, especially of a national security nature, it's a pyramid and you first find out there are many actors and you try to figure out how high up the chain it went. in this instance you've got his national security adviser to what he described as a drug deal. you've got all of the career

ambassadors on the ground in ukraine saying as soon as i caught wind of the conditionality of military aid in a meeting on these investigations into biden in 2016 i sounded the alarms through the proper channels. this was a trump-directed giuliani-executed dark op. and that's all that's been revealed and not a single republican pushed back against that. >> and the two witnesses today and the witnesses that will follow are trump appointees. they're career professionals who have dedicated their lives to public service. they are nonpolitical nonpartisan officials. but they were appointed by the president to these roles. bill taylor, the vietnam veteran, number five in his class at west point out of 800, top 1%, volunteered for dpat combat duty. he was recruited by president trump this spring to go back to ukraine. these aren't never-trumpers. these aren't democrats. these aren't members of the deep

state. these are people the president hand-picked to carry out his policy, and they are saying that the policy was wrong and it was dangerous. >> what, jeremy bash, do you think from today's testimony, will we still be talking about weeks from now? there is a crush of witnesses. there are more on friday. there will more we will hear from next week. what was the brick that was laid today or the bricks that will endure? >> certainly the new information about the july 26th phone call. but i would say the overall approach of these two witnesses who said we are not here to decide whether or not this rises to the level of a high crime. we are just here to give you the facts. it's what we've been doing our entire career and we are doing it again today. jeremy, what do you make of the republican performance? i don't know a better word for it. it would seem that at least three of the members, devin nunes, jim jordan, were performing for the president. the rest sort of seem to pursue

some attempts at reasonable lines of questioning. but what do you make of the republican effort in total? >> yeah. i think they are struggling, nicole. because the president has directed them to defend his conduct, not to say, oh, it's conduct that we agree with, but it's not impeachable. no. the president is saying the conduct was perfect. what i did was just fine. they're clearly uncomfortable in that mode, nicole. so they are casting around kind of any port in a storm. so they talk about the whistle-blower and they talk about the bidens and they talk about anything but the conduct. they do not feel comfortable defending the conduct and they won't. >> jeremy bash, we've been waiting to talk to you all day. it was worth the wait. new additions now to our table former federal prosecutor paul butler is here and matt miller. paul butler, your thoughts. >> from a prosecutor's perspective, what amazing

witnesses. so, they came to tell the hear in these argsd so we can think about the vietnam veteran, the decorated service to the country, the 50 years that ambassador taylor has been a public servant. and then prosecutors also think about things like that voice, that hair, again, just a brilliant witness. you know, the facts now not that much in controversy, the big impeachment question is based on what we all know does that just removing him from office when an election is less than a year away? i think both witnesses today made the case that the president is a clear and present danger to national security. he was relentless, and he was ruthless in this shakedown. we know that he was ruthless

based on ambassador taylor's testimony that military aid to ukraine was literally a matter of life and death for that country. thousands of people have died as a result of russian aggression. and for trump to condition that continued aid based on political favors was like a mafia don making an offer that couldn't be refused. and it was relentless because it wasn't enough that in that july 25th call he said i need you to do me a favor. though the very next day we learned today he followed up in that phone call where he said, again, what's going on, what's the latest. and so if the question is whether we should just wait and see what happens at the election, i think the stakes are too high is what the testimony today revealed. again, it's dangerous every day that this man remains president of the united states, it's dangerous to the rule of law and

it's dangerous to national security. >> and i'm looking through my papers. someone made me tidy up. at the very beginning, and i don't know if it'll be one of those sound bytes that lives on, but at the very beginning of his testimony, ambassador taylor made the point that this week a ukrainian died in ukraine in this ongoing conflict with russia. this is life and death. and there is so much b.s. and there is so much circus-like conduct in our politics. but for these two men, this is life and death in realtime. >> and he made the point that you can never tie exactly the withholding of aid to one ukrainian dying. but there were ukrainians that died during that window that the aid was supposed to be delivered and it wasn't. i think when you look at the witnesses and the credibility of their testimony, this is in a lot of ways the day that all of the republican defenses died. and you can see them there dying in realtime in the face of these very credible witnesses.

>> you could see it on devin nunes' face. he looked so sad. the first aspect was shameful. and i am glad you showed that clip of how devin nunes started this hearing, attacking them and decide they disagreed with him. that's not at all what happened and i think we saw today that's not at all who these two men e were. today will mark a real ugly turning point in how the republicans approach this going forward. they are going to realize they can't have another day like today. they can't have a hearing friday that goes like today. they can't have hearings next week that goes like today. the president gets television very much. he is going to know how bad this went today. and i suspect the next hearing we will see some very increasingly desperate and very ugly tactics from nunes maybe naming the whistle-blower increased stepped up attacks on the civil servants who are

coming forward. i think a little bit of how lindsey graham when the kavanaugh hearing was going well and he blew it all up. i think we are going to see the republicans try to blow this all up because today was devastating for them. >> george? >> you can't say enough about the witnesses. they were right out of central, they were perfect. and the flip side of how they handled the republican questioning was how they handled some of the democratic questioning. when the democrats tried to push kent and taylor into becoming advocates for impeachment, they said, no, no, that's not what we are here for. we just want to tell you what the facts are. and. >> claire, there is this question of credibility that the trump white house isn't good at dealing with or grappling with because they don't traffic in it. but do you think there is any acknowledgment anywhere sort of among the republican senators

that's used to see when the cameras were off that what happened today, the story yesterday about donald trump's designs on firing the watchdog from the intelligence community, the ongoing efforts to out the whistle-blower, do you think there are any serious republicans in the senate people like richard bur or rob portman who think the president is in trouble? >> if i could go out and have a beer with some of my old friends in the senate, they would say, oh, claire, what a disaster for donald trump. and by the way, let's just put this out there. all of the demeaning of government employees, that this president has engaged in. it hurts a lot of us who have decided to spend a lot of our life in the public sector. taylor is the deep state. taylor is someone who has spent his life in government. and the way this president has somehow made people who make that choice the bad guys that

somehow they are the swamp, they are the ones that are holding him back. that lame stream media is his whole problem. taylor is what's best about his country. and that's why he was such a powerful witness who is going to be used by either side. the other thing that happened today that was really interesting was the line that jordan was trying to sell that this was due diligence on corruption that delayed this aid, george and i talked about it while this testimony was going on, the timeline between september 5th and september 10th, the whistle-blower report was made public. the i.g. came to congress with a complaint. there was an editorial in "the washington post," and bolton quit. september 11th, the aid was released. he was busted. >> he got caught. >> he had had nothing to do with due diligence on the corruption in the ukraine. it had everything to do with getting busted. and that's why they released the aid because finally there was somebody in that house of yes

people that said, hey, you better do this, you are in trouble, and he finally relented. well, and what's come through in some of the testimony was there were people within the executive branch in the testimony of laura cooper that the transcript we just got that were concerned about laws being broken in realtime. congress had already appropriated the money. it was about releasing congressionally appropriated funds to an american ally for whom it was life and death. >> where is he? >> that's a loaded question, claire. >> why isn't he on the republican's witness list? >> we are going to take the next break to try to get some answers about where rudy giuliani is. but when we come back a member of the intelligence committee with one of the most revealing questions for these witnesses argue never-trumpers. that member joins us next. devices are like doorways

that could allow hackers into your home. 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.

it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance, security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was much more alarming. the white house meet wag one thing. security assistance was much more alarming. >> joining us now live from capitol hill where all of the

action was today, intelligence committee member congressman eric swalwell. your line of questioning was memorable for a lot of reasons. but one of them was that pointed today to both of today's witnesses when you said are you never-trumpers? what was your objective there? >> good afternoon, nicole. i wanted the public to understand that despite what the president says and despite what his defenders in congress are saying, these are patriots. they are nonpolitical. they serve abroad. and they did one of the hardest things they have been asked to do which is to come in, testify before congress, something that they saw that they thought as ambassador taylor described it was just wrong. they were not eager to come forward. they're not out to get the president. they saw wrongdoing. they honored their oath to the constitution and came to congress to tell us about it. >> what do you think we learned today that builds on what you've

described as this simple story of holding up military aid for the corrupt demand of dirt on political rivals? >> the president's call record confirms that he was asking the president of ukraine to investigate his political opponent. that's not really in dispute. but i think ambassador taylor describing being on the eastern front of this war in ukraine and that this is a matter of life and death, and as he said undoubtedly more ukrainians would die if security assistance was not given to them. that puts it in perspective that the president of the united states, for the most selfish reasons, his own personal interest in a re-election bid is holding up aid for the ukraines and that people are actually dying because that aid is not coming through. i think for a lot of americans the reality of what this means in a human nature perspective is just really starting to set in. >> the republicans seem to trot out a lot of trial balloons. but one of them was obviously

trying to question the voracity of witnesses who weren't in the room with donald trump. do you see any sort of exposure in terms of the case that you've built with the more than dozen witnesses that you have so far? and will there be a renewed effort to get people like mick mulvaney and john bolton in front of your committee? >> well, they would also then have to question the voracity of the president's own call record where he never misrepresentations the words "corruption" never says "burisma" but does say biden. and he says that a number of times. while these witnesses did not hear designately from donald trump, they heard from other agents like ambassador sondland, like kurt volker who was working with rudy giuliani. no single witness is going to show what the shakedown scheme is. it's going to take multiple witnesses and that presidential call record. but tlifrps a very good place to start. >> congressman -- >> and then to your question on mulvaney and bolton.

a great point because the republicans pointed out that these witnesses did not have first-hand knowledge. while ambassador bolton and mulvaney do have first-hand knowledge and they have refused to come in. so if the president, i believe, thought that these two witnesses would help him, he would allow them to come in. and so they are still available of c us. we would love for that to happen. >> and it would seem to me that the democrats in the committee were trying to bring to life both bolton and mulvaney's conduct. you have the now infamous mulvaney press conference where he basically confesses to military aid and tells us this is how it works in the trump white house. then you have john bolton really brought to life in quite vivid terms describing the efforts as a drug deal, talking about rudy as someone who's going to blow everybody up. how important is sort of the vivid nature of these descriptions behind the scenes? >> well, it has, you know, rings of truth to it. and it happens to be

corroborated by other witnesses. it's not only these two witnesses. and so what you see here is a picture coming together that is quite consistent, that this shakedown scheme by the president to cheat an upcoming election was underway. and so, again, if mick mulvaney and john bolton do not come and testify, that takes nothing away from the case that we have. i think if they want to do the right thing, they should. and if the president believes that they could help him, he would allow them to come in. put we are not going to chase them to court. three of ambassador bolton's deputies have come forward, have cooperated and have filled in this shakedown scheme picture for us. >> congressman, if i could ask you to standby, we are getting the president's reactions to the first hearings today. first i'd like to just start out getting your general reaction today to the impeachment hearings on the hill. do you feel that democrats made their case and how did you feel about the republican performance? >> are you talking about the

witch hunt? is that what you're talking about? i hear it's a joke. i haven't watched for one minute because i've been with the president which is much more important as far as i'm concerned. this is a sham, and shouldn't be allowed. it was a situation that was caused by people that shouldn't have allowed it to happen. i want to find out who is the whistle-blower. and because the whistle-blower gave a lot of very incorrect information including my call with the president of ukraine, which was a perfect call and highly appropriate, and he wrote something that was much different than the fact i want to find out why the i.g., why would he have when in fact all he had to do was check the call itself and he would have seen it. i am going to bein on thursday which actually was the firsttwo. and you will make a determine -- >> so in the wake of a pretty devastating account yesterday,

congressman in the "new york times" that as recently as a couple weeks ago he is seeking to dismiss the inspector general who transmitted the whistle-blower complaint in the wake of efforts i think by his allies including at least one elected republican to out the whistle-blower. the president's defiant. >> nicole, if the president wishes to further convince us of his guilt, he should fire the inspector general. if he is truly innocent as he claims, he would not fire that person. he would continue to cooperate. but again what he is trying to do is to intimidate the inspector general from doing his job, to intimidate future whistle-blowers from coming forward. it's going to do him no favor. we are going to continue this investigation. it is not stopping. no disruption, no that this shakedown scheme is understood by the american people and that we weigh just what the consequences should be. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you for spending some time with us. >> my pleasure. matt miller, it is just such

a stunning contrast. you've got the democrats with this painstakingly detailed and vivid picture of what was going on behind the scenes. and then you've got the president who comes to life in all the testimony as not just being aware of the shakedown, but directing it and then standing in the east room. i think that was the east room. and going after the whistle-blower and the i.g. >> going after the whistle-blower, attacking the i.g. and again talking about this phone call which is a lot what you hear from the republicans. they try to isolate this entire incident to just the phone call on july 25th where we know exactly what the president said. try to ignore everything else that rudy giuliani was doing and the months-long coordinated campaign he was orchestrating to extort the ukrainian government. and the problem with that is, number one, the call itself wasn't a perfect call even without everything else, the call itself is an impeachable offense. but of course we know it's not just the call itself.

it's the call and everything else. so you see the republicans trying to recrete to this because it's very hard for them to go after the rest of it. they can talk about hearsay and they can attack some of the witnesses. we are going to hear from gordon sondland next week, whose testimony was contradicted by something that bill taylor said today. i expect we are going to see gordon sondland maybe talking about more of his phone calls with the president. so this attempt by him and the republicans who are defending him to try to isolate his behavior to just this one call seems sure to collapse as we hear from more and more witnesses who talk about more and more events in this attempt by him and his cronies inside and out the government to get these investigations started. >> it's striking, george, that every defense falls apart almost before the end of a single news cycle. there is no quid pro quo, oh, yes, there is. said, listen, if it's as though he said i need a favor, then he's in trouble.

it's clear that he said i need a favor. everything that people have said in an effort to defend him has collapsed under the weight of the president's conduct. >> what we just heard the president say is delusional. and it's debilitating. it's delusional to say that the call was perfect. it's delusional to say that the whistle-blower was wrong in any significant respect. it's delusional to say that the i.c./i.g. said anything that was incorrect, anything but responsibly. and because it's so delusional, the republicans can't wage any coherent defense. the only possible defense, and i don't think it's illegal or a constitutional defense. it's more of a political defense. the only conceivable offense they can wage is that, yes, he shouldn't have done it, and it's an isolated incident and there is an election next year. this is bad and it's just maybe

we should sanction him. kind of what democrats did in 1998 and 1999 with bill clinton. you accept that he shouldn't have done it. >> but he won't let them do that. he won't let anybody wage a coherent defense on his behalf. sometimes when you're defending people you have to admit there was something not quite right. and that preserves some credibility. the republicans are just shooting away their credible. they have none now. >> it's unbelievable, claire, to be at a place where if they don't exhibit any sort of conscience, not a single republican disputed the fact that donald trump conditioned military aid on these investigations. they are saying we are fine with president warren or president biden conditioning military aid in the future on dirt on anybody. i mean, i thought the lines of questioning about what would be

appropriated. and most of these questions went to george kent, his body of work in foreign policy is around sort of educating and getting into law the rule of law in these young democracies. it seems like a very, very treacherous precedent to set. >> well, and think about how this precedent could be applied. we might have a president now whose children are engaged in high-level financing of deals around the world using their connections to the leader of the united states of america. and so are they going to be okay if a democratic president calls a country and says, hey, we are not going to give you any aid including crucial security aid until you complete an investigation over what were the financial ties between the trump organization, don trump jr. and what was going on in turkey or saudi arabia and all the financing that went on. as all the prosecutors know at

this table, you follow the money. there is money to follow in the trump family as it relates to foreign interests during this man's presidency. now we know what lindsey graham was do if that happened. we know what jim jordan would do if that happened. >> and what he'd be wearing. >> and this is the hypocrisy of all this. they know this is terrible. and on the inspector general general, if the president does this, chuck grassley has been a champion for inspectors general and for whistle-blowers in the senate. he and i worked together. susan collins has been a champion. if he does this and what it was stated in the coverage of this is that he wanted loyalty. well, the sign of an insecure leader is someone who demands loyalty or someone who's in trouble. i think it would really be a huge mistake for him to do that, although i have said that many times before and he doesn't. and here we are.

>> the president also in this news conference underway responding to the new evidence revealed by ambassador taylor. let's listen. >> but there was one moment where ambassador bill taylor recounted a conversation that an aid of his overheard -- it was the day after the phone call with zelensky on july the 26th. that -- how are things going with proceeding with the investigations. the sondland repeated back to you according to his aid that ukraine was prepared to do everything that you wanted some >> i know nothing about that. first time i've heard it. sondland said was that he did speak to me for a brief moment, and i said no quid pro quo under any circumstances. and that's true. the other i have never heard this. in any event, it's more second-hand information, but i've never heard it. >>.

>> do you recall the conversation -- >> i don't recall, no, not at all, not even a little bit. the only thing, and i guess sondland had stayed with his testimony that there was no quid pro quo, pure and simple. >> so donald trump at whatever age he is, no quid pro quo, there is an 8-year-old in the "new york times" podcast this morning saying it's not really a quid pro quo because the ukrainians didn't get anything. that seems to be the most ludicrous talking point of all. >> i thought it was really interesting that taylor said that trump thinks that he was owed something by the ukrainians. and taylor said what was we owed. and he said i have no idea, maybe the ukrainians should thank us for the military aid that we are giving them. but that's also in our national interest. but we see the president grasping at straws precisely because he does not have a defense. in that earlier tape he mentioned something about, well, there is another call that i'm going to release the transcript of. so apparently there is one call

earlier with zelensky when the president actually didn't try to shake him down. but that's like if you're charged with a bank robbery in march saying, well, i was in that bank in february and i didn't rob it, so that's not a defense. >> it's ridiculous. >> and to go back to the point about him still asserting that it's perfect, he actually is convinced himself of that. and it's not only debilitating to his defense it. >> shows why he needs to be removed. because he doesn't understand, he can't comprehend why what he did was so wrong. he's incapable of carrying out the duties of his office. >> do you think that anything that happened today changed the sort of sense of what the calculation is that he's likely to be impeached by the house but that it's a really steep hill to see him convicted in the senate? >> i think -- i don't know that it changed this day in and of itself has changed anything.

it may have moved a little bit. i think we have to see the rest of the testimony. i think as you talked about in the prior hour, it's the bricks, the bricks that all fit together. and i think the public is going to start to see the bricks. and this is the foundation. >> and unlike his border wall. >> right. it's actually being built. [ laughter ] >> exactly. all right. we've been here a long time. we are going to sneak in a break. we will be right back. hey there people eligible for medicare. gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything.

say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for. what's left is on you. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. so call unitedhealthcare insurance company today and ask for your free decision guide. with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide.

even as we sit here today, the russians are attacking ukrainian soldiers in their own country and have been for the last four years. i saw this on the front line last week. the day i was there a ukrainian soldier was killed and four were wounded. the security assistance we provide is crucial to ukraine's defense and to the protection of the soldiers i met on the front line last week. it demonstrates to ukrainians and russians that we are ukraine's reliable strategic partner. it is clearly in our national interest to deter further russian aggression. >> lives are on the line. that was an incredible piece of today's testimony and in the nick of time, we're privileged

to bring in former u.s. ambassador to nato career foreign service officer nick burns. your thoughts on that and on the day? >> nicolle, i think big policy implications. ambassador taylor enunciated one of them. there is a war going on. 14,000 ukrainians are depending on us. >> say that again. 14,000 ukrainians? >> 14,000 ukrainians have died since march of 2014. and they're depending on the united states and president trump held the aid up for three months. that's a powerful point for us to acknowledge. george kent came back to two points today. he said, you know, for 28 years since ukraine became independent, four american presidents before donald trump had said one thing to the ukrainians. don't be mafia thugs. don't be authoritarian. don't go after your political rivals. that's exactly what president trump asked zelensky to do on the president's behalf. and that's so contrary to george h.w. bush, bill clinton, george w. bush, barack obama.

so whether they aobject the united states as an actor here, that's the focus, not the politics of impeachment but the foreign implications are really see ver. it's a loss of credibility in this very important part of the world. >> the question about russia in this country, tragically, falls down among right, left, republican democratic lines. democrats now in -- in -- you're right. it's been bipartisan. but republicans have been some of the most vocal critics of vladimir putin. i'm thinking of people like john mccain. >> mitch mcconnell. >> right. the old lindsey graham. independent joe lieberman. but what do you think in russia? are they so happy to see donald trump extorting one of their enemies on their border and holding up aid for ukraine? >> the real weapon we had in the cold war from the late '40s to the '90s was we didn't do things like that. we were a democracy. and that's what -- that's the

secret sauce of the united states. it's our democracy. it overcomes, you know, russian military strength and now the president, our president, has put us down on putin's level. and so to me, that's the big policy loss. you don't win that back. the president of the united states was -- was in embracing erdogan in the oval office today when this impeachment trial hearing was going on. he's embraced kim jong-un and who does he go after? he goes after angela merkel and justin true dough and bill taylor and george kent. public enemies. >> i want to ask you about some reporting that our great colleagues had yesterday and it was a closed press speech that former national security advisor john bolton gave. you and i both in interest of full disclosure worked in the george at the time, a somewhat polarizing appointee to usun. united states ambassadors of the u.n. he has emerged, though, i think

in the testimony of one of the witnesses, a strong antenna and aversion to what he described as a drug deal. he also warned yesterday in his close-door speech that there is a real danger that donald trump could do something like pull out of nato. do you think there are people on the inside with even more damaging revelations than what we've already heard? >> i think it stands to reason. it's -- it was a contribution f contradiction for the republicans to complain today about the level of the witnesses. mike pompeo wasn't there. john bolton wasn't there. the vice president of the united states obviously knows a lot. john bolton ought to testify. if he's telling private audiences this week, he's been very critical of the president, that the president, maybe he has further revelations. it's his patriotic duty to testify. >> do you think if any of those people, mike pompeo, vice president pence, john bolton, do you think if they had anything exculpatory to say that donald trump would say, you know, screw executive privilege, executive immunity. get your rear end up there and make sure it's on tv?

>> there's no question about it. and so the fact that they won't i think tells you a lot about the -- about how the white house is handling this. >> have you ever seen anything like this? >> never. bill taylor was asked that question today. have we ever -- i worked from 1980 on in the u.s. government for five presidents. no president in our lifetime has ever asked another leader to investigate that president's rival for political gain for the president's re-election. it's an abuse of the president's power. i mean, the lawyers here will tell me if there is an impeachment case. i think as a civilian, there is an impeachment case. and frankly, what i saw today was thousands of diversionary tactics by the republicans and a lot of defaming of my two friends, bill taylor and george kent. they've got nothing on this story which is the president tried to extort the ukrainian government. >> ambassador burns, it's always a pleasure to see you. thank you so much for spending some time with us. we are going to sneak in our very last break. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back.

we'll be right back.

what was your experience with ambassador yovanovitch? was she working hard to combat corruption in ukraine, sir? >> she was dedicated, as is every u.s. government official in ukraine to help ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption, which they actually have made a number of important steps since 2014. >> now, some in ukraine probably disliked her efforts to help with corruption, is that correct? >> as i mentioned in my testimony, you can't promote principle to any corruptive action without pissing corrupt people. >> fair enough. >> we're back. final thoughts? >> you know, i was struck watching today at the consistency between the behavior we've seen in these impeachment hearings, the presidential behavior, and what we saw in leadi reading the mueller report. it's just a flip side of the same coin. we found out reading the mueller report the president believes he can use the powerf his office to kill investigations into himself. we're finding in these

impeachment hearings that he believes he can use the power of his office to demand investigations into his political opponents. they are equally bad abuses of power. they ought to be equally impeachable. and i think it drives home the idea that if the president is not removed from office over this, there is no reason to think he won't do it again. >> final thought? >> couldn't agree more. he -- he can't see the difference between his own personal interests and the country's. he puts his own interest first. he -- he thinks his call was perfect because he doesn't -- he doesn't perceive there's any interest that overrides his. >> all right. that does it for us. my thanks to matt miller, george conway, paul butler. claire mccass till. most of all, to you for watching. that does it for us. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. us. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now welcome to wednesday.

not just any wednesday. it's "meet the press daily" and good evening i'm chuck todd here in new yor