head qua headquarters here in new york. thanks for joining us this hour. happy to have you with us. you know, we do not have very much experience with impeachment of a president in this country. in the modern era, only one president has been impeached, only one other has been subject to impeachment proceedings before he resigned. we therefore, because of that limited historical experience, we just don't know what counts as normal for the first day of public hearings of the impeachment proceedings against a sitting president. but today's proceedings in congress -- i feel like they did do us a little bit of a favor by giving us very clearly, like, a caption, or, like, the thing

you'd write on the mug if you were making swag for today's hearing, like, a motto. about two-thirds of the way through the proceedings today as we got what -- i guess you could think of it more as like a theme or a theme song for what we, as a country, are learning from this impeachment thus far after day one. >> some in ukraine disliked her efforts? >> you can't promote principled ant anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people. >> fair enough. >> when you take principled, ant anti-corruption action -- expect that that will anger -- that will upset corrupt people. principled anti-corrupt action angers corrupt people. you could needlepoint that on a pillow today, right, as your keepsake from the first day of the trump impeachment hearings. and perhaps it's the main

message of these proceedings thus far. and, you know, it's clear in context, like someone like that witness, deputy assistant secretary of state george kent, he sees, forgive me, pissing off corrupt people, as not only a badge of honor for people in his profession and for people working in the u.s. government honorably, but he sees that as a sign that you're doing good work, that you're doing your work the right way, you are hitting the right mark. >> you don't step into the public arena of international diplomacy in active pursuit of principled u.s. interests without expecting vigorous push-back, including personal attacks. such attacks came from the russians, their proxies and corrupt ukrainians. that tells me our efforts were hitting their mark. it was unexpected and most unfortunate, however, to watch some americans, including those who alied themselves with

corrupt ukrainians in pursuit of private agendas, launch attacks on dedicated public servants advancing u.s. interests in ukraine. >> we expect push-back in our work, from the entities the united states is fighting against in the world. and from the corrupt forces we are fighting to disempower and bring to justice. but when other americans help with that kind of push-back against us, those smears and attacks by america's enemies brought against us by other americans working with those corrupt forces? that is a new level of wrong for our country. you can't promote principled ant anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people. and when corrupt people are really mad, you know you've hit your mark. these impeachment hearings today were riveting. and i don't know if they're all going to be like this. for one, i'm not sure anybody knew that we would get new fake ch factual revelations in testimony

today. both witnesses have spoken at length for hours and hours in closed door depositions and we've seen the transcripts of those depositions. nevertheless, today, in today's first public hear, we got new factual revelations, not just about details on the edges of this scandal, but new facts about the actions of the president and him directing this scheme personally. so we're going to get to that in just a moment. i'm not sure anybody knew we were going to get something that big and that new today in this first public hearing. but alongside that new information, which was a surprise, we also just got this master class in how our foreign policy is supposed to work and why it's supposed to work that way and how that benefits us as a country. and how much somebody screwing with it for corrupt purposes not only hurts our allies, it also hurts us, too. and it helps our enemies. >> you alwaso testified that russia was watching closely to

gauge the level of american support for the ukrainian government can. why is that significant? >> this is significant, mr. chairman, because the ukrainians, in particular, under this new administration, are eager to end this war and they are eager to end it in a way that the russians leave their territory. these negotiations, like all negotiations, are difficult. ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength or, at least, more strength than they now have. part of that strength, part of the ability of the ukrainians to negotiate against the russians with the russians for an end to the war depends on united states, and other, international support. if we withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance, that's a message to the ukrainians, but it's at least as important as

your question indicates, mr. chairman, to the russians, who are looking for any sign of weakness or any sign that we are withdrawing our support for ukraine. >> and so, when the ukrainians learned of the suspension of the military aid, either privately or when others learned publicly, the russians would be learning, also. and they would take that as a lack of robust u.s. support for ukraine, is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> and that would weaken ukraine in negotiating an end to the war. >> it would. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to, that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. until they invaded ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of nations, of

inviability of borders. that rule of law, that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity, as well as peace in europe, was violated by the russians and if we don't push back on that, on those violations, then that will continue and that, mr. chairman, effects us, it effects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. this effects the kind of world that we want to see, so, that effects our national interests very directly. ukraine is on the frontline of that -- of that conflict. >> impeachment proceedings against president trump starting on day one with as clear an exfully case about what u.s. policy in that part of the world, what u.s. policy in ukraine, is supposed to be about

and why it is that way and why it's important and why messing with it is a terrible idea, not just because we might have warm feelings or something for ukraine, but because that stated policy of the united states makes sense and it is in our own interest, our own strong interest as a country. and so anybody who screws that up, for their own purposes, is undermining the national security of the united states. >> on september 9th of this year, you texted ambassador sondland and volcker and the text message should be on the screen in front of you. if you could read what you wrote? >> as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. >> what did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy? >> mr. coleman, i meant that

the -- because of the importance of security assistance, that we had just described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important, that security assistance was so important for ukraine, as well as our own national interest, to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign, made no sense. it was -- it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical. it could not be explained. it was crazy. >> when you say all of what we were trying to do, what do you mean by we? >> i mean that the united states was trying to support ukraine as a frontline state against russian attack and, again, the whole notion of a rules-based order was being threatened by the russians in ukraine, so, our security assistance was designed to support ukraine. that's -- it was not just the

united states, it was all of r our -- of our allies. >> ambassador taylor, in your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the united states around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the united states? >> no, i have not. >> mr. kent, that vital military assistance that was not the only thing that president trump was withholding from ukraine. what else was contingent on ukraine initiating these investigations? >> well, as we've talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house meeting was being held contingent to an announcement. >> how important to president zelensky was a white house meeting? >> new leaders, particularly countries that are trying to have good footing in the

international arena, see a meeting with the u.s. president in the oval office as the white house as a -- as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> president zelensky was a relatively new president, is that right? >> that's correct. he was elected on april 21st and his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. >> would a white house meeting for president zelensky boost his legitimacy as a new president in ukraine? >> it would primarily boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir putin about the russian occupation of 7% of ukrainian territory. >> mr. kent, is pressuring ukraine to conduct what i believe you've called political investigations a part of u.s. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in crew yan and around the world? >> it is not. >> is it in the national interest of the united states? >> in my opinion, it is not.

>> it is a purpose of our foreign policy to encourage foreign nations to refrain from conducting political investigations, is that right? >> correct. and, in fact, as a matter of policy, not of programming, we oftentimes raise our concerns, usually in private, with countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution and persecution of their opponents. as a general principle, i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law, regardless of the country. >> yeah, asking a prosecutor to do selective politically associated investigations. america's actually the country that goes after corrupt leaders all around the world who try to do something like that. that trick, where you lean on some prosecutor somewhere to bring a selective politically associated prosecution against

somebody who is opposed to people in power, that's something that america stops, not something that an american president does. but you can't promote principled ant anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people. you know, you could have started the impeachment proceedings anywhere, with any of the witnesses that have thus far been brought in for these depositions, but starting with these two witnesses today, who can speak in terms like this about why american behavior matters here and what american norms and what the american policy toward this part of the world is about, why it serves our national interest -- the thing that that did unexpectedly, for me, at least, was put in really sharp relief what the danger was of what president trump got caught doing in ukraine. what the danger of it was. not just because he got caught doing something illegal, but specifically because what he was doing was at the direct expense of our country's national

interest. >> both of you have explained that you grew seriously concerned when you realized that the interest of this irregular channel die verged from official u.s. policy and interest. was mr. giuliani promoting u.s. national interest or policy in crew yan, ambassador? >> i don't think so, ma'am. >> mr. kent? >> no, he was not. >> what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next level cycle. >> ambassador taylor? what interest do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> both witnesses questioned of val decki idemmings of florida. i've been showing back and forth here with the democrats. the republicans got their shot

today. they handed off their questioning to their republican counsel, and what should have been sort of their best moment didn't work right. and, again, with these super serious witnesses, right, 30 years experience, 50 years experience, these clear rock-ribbed witnesses, right, who know about american national interest, who know about american national security and who can explain it in plain terms, because they have been living it for decades in a totally nonpartisan context, i mean, those are the witnesses and the republicans brought out their counsel at the start of the hearing to question them, to go at them and it was like -- what now? the republican counsel's exchanges with bill taylor at one point were actually funny. at least it appeared to be funny to ambassador bill taylor. >> ambassador taylor, i want to turn to the discussion of the

irregular channel you described. in fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it's not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct? >> it's not as outlandish as it could be, i agree with that. >> ah, yes, sir. could be even weirder, i suppose. they could wear, like, mexican wrestling masks, that would make it weirder. but so, that's like how the committee counsel starts on the republican side, but then, point of order here, if you right now are washes dishes or not looking at the screen, this next thing i'm going to show you is a visual, you want to see this. just watch how ambassador bill taylor responds as the republican committee counsel keeps going down this road, trying to get bill taylor to agree that what president trump was trying to do here in crew yan with his cast of characters that were, like, taking over and running a parallel foreign policy that was in opposition to actual foreign policy and seemed

to be just serving the president, he's trying to get bill taylor to say, that wasn't all that weird, right? it wasn't totally nuts, was it? but like i said, this is a visual. you have to watch bill taylor's face here. >> in the second member of the irregular channel is ambassador sondland, who is semiconfirmed ambassador to the eu, so, his involvement here, while, you know, not necessarily part of his official duties as the ambassador to the eu, is certainly not outlandish for him to be interested and engaged pursuant to the president of secretary pompeo's direction, correct? >> it's a little unusual for the u.s. ambassador to the eu to play a role in ukraine policy. >> okay. and, you know, might be irregular but it's certainly not outlandish. and secretary perry is the third

member of the irregular channel. >> he's like -- you -- you want me to say this is not outlandish? i -- why don't you just keep talking there, buddy, i'm going to sit this one out, he's like, okay, i'll sit this one out, let's move onto the third amigo. so, i mean, that was the best -- that was the counsel they hired specifically for this purpose. the questioning from the republican side of the aisle did not illicit a lot of substance today, which is too bad. maybe that will get better over time. this is an interesting and important story and the more investigation we can get and hopefully two sides that are sort of equally equipped to try to get at the facts gives you a better shot at getting the full story than just one side pursuing that and the other one being, like, it's all normal, right? right? it's not normal, okay, i'll move on. i mean, that's just not -- doesn't help. but what happened today was that kind of questioning from the republican committee counsel and when the republican -- when the

republicans otherwise tried to continue promoting the theories that underlay these investigations that trump wanted from ukraine, i mean, they were trying to promote those theories, which i think works when they are in their own bubble and they are only talking to themselves. that argument from the republicans today, i'm trying to be nice about it, it was hard for them to sustain that in front of these two witnesses who aren't part of their bubble, who are two long-standing professionals who have lived this work and who actually know of what they speak. >> now, are you aware that this is all part of a larger allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election? >> yes, that is my understanding. >> and to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election? >> to my knowledge, there is no factual basis, no. >> and, in fact, who did

interfere in the 2016 election? >> i think it's amply clear that russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle. let's move to the third except that i mentioned, related to vice president biden, and it says the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son. this is president trump speaking, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so, whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible. now, at the time of this call, vice president biden was the front-runner for the democratic nomination in the 2020 election and mr. kent, are you familiar, as you indicate in your opening state, about these allegations related to vice president biden? >> i am. >> and to your knowledge, is there anything factual basis to support those allegations? >> none whatsoever. >> when vice president biden acted in ukraine, did he act in

accordance with official u.s. policy? >> he did. >> so, mr. kent, as you look at this whole mess, rudy giuliani, president trump, in your opinion, was this a comprehensive and whole of government effort to end corruption in ukraine? >> referring to the request in july -- >> exactly. >> i would not say so, no, sir. >> yeah, so, i was there and i know how these things work and what joe biden did as vice president was carry out normal overt out in the open u.s. government policy to support ukraine and help them fight corruption. what trump and giuliani have been trying to do this year was not that. i know what that looks like, this was something different. so, i mean, there's a lot to get to. huge first day of the impeachment proceedings against the president and we're going to have a lot more of these over the next two weeks at least, so we've got to pace ourselves, and it's going to be contentious. remember, you can't promote

principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people. things are going to be contentious. as i mentioned at the top, there was big new factual revelation today, one that puts president trump even more squarely in the middle of what we now can see was a very consequential crime spree. that new evidence about the president's centrality and personal direct involvement in that scheme while it was at its apex being carried out, we've got that next. stay with us. that 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. motor? nope. not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

so, as i mentioned at the top, i'm not sure anyone in the public expected we were going to get new big deal factual revelations from the impeachment scandal today, but surprise. you can never get too comfortable with this story, it just keeps going. >> 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. following that meeting, in the presence of my staff, at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told

him of his meetings in kyiv. a member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone, asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. ambassador 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 cared more about the investigations of biden. at the time i gave my deposition on october 22nd, i was not aware of this information. i am including it here for completeness. >> this was not known before today's impeachment hearing. what ambassador bill taylor just described there is something that happened the day after that phone call between president trump and the ukrainian president, which kicked off this whole impeachment saga. the day after that call, gordon sondland, the trump inaugural donor and rookie diplomat, he called president trump on his

cell phone from a restaurant in ukraine, ding, ding, ding, like, red flags, sirens going off in the counterintelligence world just about that. he calls president trump personally on his cell phone from a restaurant in ukraine and an embassy staffer with him overhear orren that call president trump asking gordon sondland about ukraine doing these investigations that he wants. when sondland hangs up that call with the president, the staffer who is sitting there with him turns to him and asks what does trump think about ukraine. sondland says, quote, president trump cares more about the investigations of biden. that was new today. the president personally following up personally and directly with his guy in ukraine about getting his biden investigations. when bill taylor dropped that per verb y'all bomb today, he

said this is new information, he said he did not know this when he gave his earlier deposition and he said he asked his lawyer to notify the committee about this new information as soon as he learned of it last friday. he also said that since his counsel notified the committee about this fact, this new fact that was not previously in the record, he said he believed the committee was following up on it. well, indeed they are. now we know. >> first of all, in terms of the new information that ambassador taylor gave today about this conversation the day after president trump was 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 is 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 very, obviously, very important, because there is an effort apparently to, by the president's allies, throw

sondland under the bus, through anybody under the bus in an effort to protect the president. but what this call indicates, as other testimony has likewise indicated, is that the instructions are coming from the president on down. i think this witness is potentially very important and, of course, we are moving to depose this witness and we have already scheduled their deposition. >> new testimony, new revelation about the president's direct and personal involvement, new witness scheduled to give a deposition to the impeachment committees the day after tomorrow, that witness will be the staffer to bill taylor who overheard that call. new stuff every day. stay hydrated. keep pace. this is going to get bigger before it gets smaller. joining us now is eric swalwell, a member of the judiciary committee and the intelligence committee. congressman, great to have you here. thank you for your time. >> thank you. good evening, rachel. >> let me just ask you the overall view, sir, of what you took away from today's hearing

and what you think the american people learned that was most important? >> the most important part of the hearing were the witnesses. you know, these were people of unimpeachable integrity. most of their service has been abroad and with ambassador taylor, that included serving in vietnam. they are not out to get the president as the president and his defenders have suggested. they saw wrongdoing, as ambassador taylor said, what the president was seeking to do was just wrong, and when asked to talk about it, they did not follow the president's guidance to not come to congress, they honored the constitution, they came forward and they described what legitimate u.s. foreign policy is and what they saw as irregular, illegitimate u.s. foreign policy. but i think, rachel, one of the most important exchanges is when ambassador taylor described what this meant, life and death, for ukrainians. he said undoubtedly, without

u.s. security assistance, more ukrainians will die. that means the president of the united states was selfishly putting his own campaign's interest, his re-election interest, ahead of other people who would die because he was leveraging his campaign's assistance against their lives. >> well, congressman, i felt like there was also a really striking moment, actually, in your questioning with ambassador bill taylor today. you just referenced a little bit about what bill taylor said in this back and forth, but i wouldn't mind just playing this for our viewers and love to get your explanation of why you brought this up and why you did this in this way today. let's watch. >> you described in your text message exchanges that engaging in a scheme like this is, quote, crazy. can we also agree that it's just wrong? >> yes. >> why is it wrong? >> again, our holding up or security assistance that would

go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia, for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason, is wrong. >> why did you want to draw him out on why that's wrong? why ask him for that judgment in that way today? >> rachel, for most people in america who just go to work every day, feed their kids, take care of their family, believe that this is a country where if you work hard, you do better and dream bigger, american values to them are free speech, free markets, free elections. and there's a lot of legal terms to describe what the president was trying to do, but i think for most of us, it was just wrong. it was wrong to try and involve a foreign government in our elections, it was wrong to use our taxpayer dollars to try and get another government to investigate a political opponent. and i thought it was important

to just really bring it down to earth through ambassador taylor's own perspective. >> ambassador taylor also broke some news today, at least news to those of us in the public. you on the committee may have known about this for a few days already. but he shared the new details about one of his staffers overhearing the president, directly inquiring the day after his phone call with the ukrainian president, directly inquiring about the status of those investigations that he wanted in ukraine. that was new to us, the public, watching this today. can you tell us why that's significant and how you intend to follow up on that? >> well, it's significant because i don't think there's anyone who has followed this president who would have a hard time believing that the day after he spoke with president zelensky, that he would call ambassador sondland and follow up on these investigations. it sounds consistent with what we've heard in this investigation and what we know about this president. second, and i think this is really important, this information was passed to ambassador taylor just a few

weeks after he came from ukraine to washington to give us his deposition. that means somebody saw ambassador taylor's opening statement and recognized that they had witnessed wrong doing themselves and reported it to ambassador taylor. i think that's important. because the more people step up who see wrong doing, they'll be able to, one, assis us in our investigation and help us restore so many of the democratic principles that the president has taken a wrecking ball to. >> eric swalwell, sir, i know that sleep is at a proceed yum right now, as is prep time. thank you for making time tonight. >> my pleasure, rachel. thank you. much more ahead on this historic night, including one very, very simple cheap thing that is repeatedly turning out to be trouble for the president. that became more clear than ever today and that story's next. stay with us. userty

only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liber♪y wow! giving one. how did you guys...? >>don't ask. the lexus december to rembember sales event get 0 percent apr for 60 months on all 2019 models. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

we have to go. - i'm not a criminal. are y'all the new black panthers? we didn't have a choice. it was self defense. it's an honor to meet y'all. y'all really gave us something to believe in. how you gonna outrun the police? we hide in plain sight. i'm tired of playing it safe. thank you for this journey. no matter how it ends.

maybe he will try a ban on pencils. or paper. he could -- he could ban the use of paper in conjunction with pens or pencils. throughout the executive branch, as long as he's president. that might improve -- one of the things that has really bedevilled president trump and his many scandals thus far is that as he and his supporters have tried to paint witnesses to the president's behavior as unreliable or as liars, it keeps turning out that these witnesses, these law enforcement and intelligence professionals and experienced diplomats and

other people who fill the upper echelons of the federal government and who therefore have the opportunity to witness the president's behavior, turns out these folks tend to be train ed note-takers. it is absolutely terrible for the president. >> mr. kent, as the day-to-day state department point person in washington on ukraine policy, were you aware of this effort to persuade president zelensky to issue a statement in order to get a white house meeting while they were happening? >> when this exchange happened on august 10th, i was not. >> when did you learn about them? >> as ambassador taylor referenced earlier in his testimony and oral answering, he heard on august 16th, he then called me and we had a conversation and at that point, i memorialized my concerns in a note to the file. >> mr. kent, you are aware that your notes have not been turned over to congress? >> i have turned all records over to the state department

because whatever we do is considered a federal record, not a personal record. >> now, ambassador taylor, you -- in your opening state, you outlined a very detailed timeline, and, in fact, we have a written copy here and you included some phrases and words in quotations. did you take notes of this conversation on september 1st with ambassador sondland? >> i did. >> did you take moments related to most of the conversations, if not all of them, that you recited in your opening statement? >> all of them, mr. goldman. >> and you are aware, i presume that the state department has not provided those notes to the committee, is that right? >> i am aware. >> so, we don't have the benefit of reviewing them to ask you these questions. >> correct. i understand that they may be coming sooner or later. >> well, we would welcome that. >> did you take notes on most of the conversations you quoted in your statement? i took notes on all of those conversations, yes, i'm sure. i take notes on all my

conversations. now, when bill taylor volunteered there at the end, he said, i understand they may be coming, sooner, sooner or later, he said he understands that his notes he turned over might be coming to the committee sooner or later. we don't know exactly what he meant by that. it did send a murmur through the hearing room, because he seemed to be indicates that he had listen to believe the committees might be getting some of these documents, some of the notes from these witnesses. some of the paper that has, of course, already been subpoenaed. now, in the normal course of events, that is what you would expect. after the house subpoenas the state department for the purpose of those impeachment proceedings, you'd expect the state department to review the documents in its possession and hand over anything that is responsive to the subpoena, including the handwritten notes that were referenced today. you would think that, in the

normal sourcourse of events. that said, a source tells us tonight that the white house has instructed the state department not to even begin reviewing all of the documents that they have had subpoenaed, let alone start the process of handing them over to congress. a source familiar with this process tells us the white house has instructed the state department to not even start reviewing its documents, let alone handing any of them over. so, despite bill taylor saying documents might be coming, it looks like, at least our reporting tonight indicates those documents are not coming, maybe at all. if so, if these notes aren't going to turn up, if the supporting documentation for what these witnesses is testifying about isn't going to turn up, what does that mean for the impeachment proceedings? what does that mean for the testimony of all the witnesses, the ones today and the ones that are stacked up over the next two weeks? they all kept notes. but the administration is

keeping their notes and their communications, their emails, their text messages, in some cases, their phones, and are not letting the committee see those items and those documents. what does that do to the process? hold that thought. process? hold that thought. (mom) nooooo... (dad) nooooo... (son) nooooo... (avo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. [son loudly clears throat] [mom sighs] [mom and dad laugh] (avo) bounty, the quicker picker upper. hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪

experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. a peaceful night sleep without only imagine... frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

i am all about livi♪g joyfully. hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

what year did you graduate from west point? >> 1969, sir. >> the height of the vietnam war, wasn't it, sir? >> the height was about that time. >> what was your class rank at west point? >> i was number five. >> how many people were in your class? >> 800. >> 800 cadets, you were number five. >> yes, sir. >> so, when you are top 1% of your class at west point, you probably get your pick of assignments, but you picked the infantry. >> i did, sir, yes. >> rifle company commander? >> sir. >> where did you serve? >> in vietnam. >> did you see combat in vietnam, sir? >> i did. >> did you earn any come men

dag stations for that service? >> i was awarded the combat infant infantryman's badge. there was a bronze star, air medal. >> that's for valor, isn't it, sir? >> yes. >> august 28th, you find yourself in ukraine with the national security adviser, mr. bolton, right? >> yes, sir. >> and you convey to him your concerns. he tells you that you should bring it up with the secretary of state. >> yes, sir. >> have you ever sent a cable like that? how many times in your career, 40, 50 years, have you sent a cable directly to the secretary of state. >> once. >> this time. >> yes, sir. >> in 50 years. >> rifle companymen don't send cables, but yes. >> how many times have you sent a cable like that? one, in 50 years. it would help to be able to see that cable. the impeachment committees haven't seen it. they haven't seen anything from the state department at all,

including not just the cables, but these witnesses own handwritten notes, which the state department has and is keeping and is not letting the committee see. can they keep stuff like that from the committees forever? and, as an investigatory matter, is witness testimony like we saw today, is it disadvantaged with the committees not being able to see the notes that bolster the cases that these witnesses are making. joining us now is barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. great to have you here. thank you for making time for us. >> oh, thanks, rachel. i'm glad to be here. >> so, i know this isn't a courtroom, i know this is a different type of proceed, but obviously, it had a -- it had a witness in the courtroom feel to some of it today. do you think that the witness testimony from these witnesses today, from future witnesses, could be disadvantages in terms of its value to the inquiry because the committee isn't -- seems like it's not going to get any of the notes and documentation to back up what these witnesses are saying?

>> yes. so, the notes themselves, you know, if it were a courtroom, are not typically admissible, it's the testimony itself, though notes can be helpful to refresh a witness's recollect n recollection. they may say, it would help me to look at my notes to refresh my memory about that. but the thing that is a real disadvantage here is the other document us, the cables, the messages, the text messages, because those can tend to corroborate witness testimony. we already have republicans here who are attacking the testimony, they're saying, this is hearsay, second-hand information and the like. that kind of dock men tear evidence could support what they're saying. so, i think this strategy could ultimately backfire on the administration, because, as they say, these state department officials, administration officials are not required to testify, they're asserting pr i

privileges, absolute immunity, the more this information is necessary, the more compelling the argument that it needs to be turned over. and so, every time they attack these witnesses as hearsay and second-hand information, they are making the case that these documents should be turned over. >> i also want to ask you, barb, about the new information we got today. bill taylor says a member of his staff overheard a phone call that gordon sondland placed to the president personally from a cell phone from a restaurant in ukraine, which is mind-bending in itself. that's not how things are supposed to go. that is mind-bending from a national security perspective. but the staffer heard president trump asking his guy in ukraine about those investigations. aside from this just being new information, do you think this

is potentially significant in terms of linking the president more deeply and personally to the crimes at the center of this scandal? >> i do. i thought it was very surprising, just because it was new. we heard the depositions and seen the transcript testimony. i was surprised we had a new fact. but i think it is particularly significant, because it linked president trump into the scheme. it is not now just a one-off conversation on july 25th when he mentions in his rambling fashion that he would like ukraine to do us a favor. he is following up. he wants to know what's going on with the investigation and he hears from sondland that ukraine is ready to proceed and move forward with this. so, it demonstrates that president trump is involved and he wants status updates. there's been some suggestion that one of the defenses might be to suggest that rudy giuliani was going rogue or mick mulvaney and the others were orchestrating it without the

president's knowledge, so, the more information you have tying president trump to this scheme, the more likely it is that he is impeachab impeachable. so, this revelation today is extremely significant for that reason. >> barbara mcquade, thank you for your time. >> thanks, rachel. glad to be here. and i'm going to have that saying you have needlepointed tattooed on my back. >> it is a nice badge of honor thing, right? i'm going to learn to needlepoint tonight, specifically so i can learn to do that. thank you, bash. good to see you. we'll be right back. see you. we'll be right back. when you shop with wayfair,

you spend less and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

mr. kent, are you familiar, as you indicate in your opening statement, about these allegations related to vice president biden? >> i am. >> and to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support those allegations? >> none whatsoever. >> when vice president biden acted in ukraine, did he act in accordance with official u.s. policy? >> he did. the vice president's role was critically important. it was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda. the vice president was promoting u.s. policy objectives in ukraine. >> so, joe biden was participating in an open effort to address corruption in ukraine. >> that is correct. >> george kent repeatedly testifying today that despite whatever rudy giuliani might be trying to sell you for a nickel, vice president joe biden did the right thing when it came to his

dealings with ukraine when he was vice president. unlike some other people who we know trying to do dealings with ukraine right now. today was like a double barrel problem for the president. triple barrelled, maybe. one, the president's behavior was nailed down by important witnesses to that context. to that conduct. also, it was put in the context of how dangerous the president's behavior was for our country. how much the thing he got caught doing in ukraine to try to benefit himself was at the expense of america's serious national security interests. and third barrel, forgive the metaphor going awry, but bonus, there ended up being lots of testimony today, including to the republican hapless committee counsel who was trying to take this in a different direction, ended up being lots of testimony today about how vice president biden did nothing wrong in ukraine, indeed, quite the

contra contrary. he was key to the rational national security and foreign policy work in that country and was part of a whole of government effort. none of that is good for the argument that's been coming from president trump and rudy giuliani and all of the other dwarfs. whether or not this leads to the president's impeachment and the white house and the president's supporters in congress are still not only fighting that, they're still trying to use this scandal to slime former joe biden ahead of the 2020 election, that turns out to be amazing. and for those of us watching at home, i mean, alongside that, there's the fact that it turns out the democratic presidential field for 2020, even as of today, is still not settled. nbc news and others reporting tonight that massachusetts governor deval patrick is about to join the democratic presidential race for 2020. according to "the new york times" he plans to enter the race tomorrow morning and then head to new hampshire's state house to fill out paperwork to get himself onto the primary ballot there. so, even as the president's being impeached for this scheme

which he was setting up to try to dirty up joe biden for 2020, even as that's happening, still, the democratic 2020 field still growing. another remind their the news is not going to let up on any front any time soon. we'll see you again tomorrow night. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. happy to have you back. >> thank you. and deval patrick, at least, won't be one of those presidential candidates who are tied down as a juror in the tru trump impeachment trial, if that's what january is all about. >> seriously. impeachment hearings that day. it's going to be nuts, man. >> america's going to watch the hearing, and then they're going to watch you moderate that debate. that's the way it's going to work. >> kill me now. we have so much ground to cover on this historic first day