donald trump's -- >> that's exactly right. and we know women unlike other folks get under donald trump's skin more than anyone else. and i think it was andrew earlier who said she was a more compelling, you know, motive -- you know, not that she's emotional but inspired emotions in people witness than we saw on wednesday. >> no coincidence that she was a strong, tough, brave woman who has spent her life serving u.s. national security. what a day. thank you so much for being with us all day long. my thanks to the rev, alexy, chuck, most of all to you for watching. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. welcome to friday. it's "meet the press daily" and good evening i'm chuck todd here in washington where president trump is clearly rattled. by both the credible and

compelling testimony in today's impeachment hearing and the criminal conviction of his long time associate roger stone who was found guilty on all seven counts today. accusations of witness intimidation were a major headline in today's impeachment hearing after the president decided to attack the witness, his former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, while she was testifying about his conduct. >> now, the president real time is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. >> designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i -- i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do. but i think the effect is to be intimidating. >> well, i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.

>> when asked by reporters about attacking yovanovitch, the president reacting -- reacted basically as he typically does by claiming that the other side is the one intimidating witnesses, not him. the president's attacks on yovanovitch, a widely-respected career public servant, made this hearing even more of a major story on a day where republicans were trying to dismiss her as a minor player in this case and frankly, they were probably going to be able to do that. but the president's attacks on his former ambassador put republicans in an awkward position of defending her credibility even as she testified about the president's misconduct. she confirmed he -- then established a back channel that circumvented state and u.s. policy. but perhaps most importantly, yovanovitch's testimony may have helped democrats advance their argument that the president's conduct represents an urgent and immediate threat to u.s. interest which merits an impeachment proceeding ahead of an election. >> after these events, what

foreign official, corrupt or not, could be blamed for wondering whether the u.s. ambassador represents the president's views? and what u.s. ambassador could be blamed for harboring the fear that they can't count on our government to support them as they implement stated u.s. policy and protect and defend u.s. interests? >> clearest rationale you've heard from anybody about why you would have to remove him before november. now, the republican line of inquiry did not dispute the substance of her testimony. instead, they attacked the credibility of the proceedings while also emphasizing yovanovitch was not in the room for many of the key events that are in dispute. >> were you involved in the july 25th trump/zelensky phone call or preparations for the call? >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the deliberations about the pause in military sales to ukraine as the trump administration reviewed newly-elected president

zelensky's commitment to corruption reform? >> no, i was not. >> did you ever talk to president trump in 2019? >> no i have not. >> mick mulvaney? >> no, i have not. >> i'm joined now by my colleagues kelly o'donnell at the white house and garrett haake on capitol hill. also with us, nbc analyst and former u.s. ambassador michael mcfaul. kelly, i want to start with you at the white house. first, let me do the president's tweets here so everybody knows what we're referring to. this is what he did this morning. everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad he tweets. she started off in somalia. how did that go? then fast forward to ukraine where they knew the ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her. quick fact check aside, that's not true. it's the president who brought her up. they call it serving at the pleasure of the president. the u.s. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy much

different than preceding administrations. it is called quite simply america first. with all that, however, i have done far more for ukraine o. the white house, do they at all accept the fact that this tweet ended up backfiring on them today on capitol hill? >> well, not publicly. but certainly, it has changed the dynamic today because the argument republicans were on their way to making is that this ambassador, although well-respected and certainly personally painful for her to be removed from a position where she had been praised, that that was within the president's rights. and that that could be an argument they could make, as well as she did not have the direct contact with the most key events involving the direct conversation between president trump and president zelensky. but the president, who needs to insert himself very often and the strategy of i'm not going to be watching the hearings, which

may have worked better for him. now, putting himself into this really gave republicans an awkward situation. and, frankly, it gave adam schiff a whole new opportunity to look at this particular tweet and the timing of it as part of a broader picture of he said obstruction as one of the potential articles of impeachment that could come forward from this. so the white house acknowledging that the president is speaking for himself, has the right to do this, has done nothing wrong. but at the same time, this did make the day much more complicated. so in the, you know, from the file of don't get in your own way, that missed the mark. >> garrett, before i go to you, let me play your exchange with jim jordan because when jim jordan can't spin for the president, you know it's not good -- not going well for him. let me play it. >> you think it's witness intimidation to essentially be attacking her while she's on the stand testifying against him?

>> i think ambassador yovanovitch has served in what you say five hardship areas. i think she's a pretty tough lady. >> let me do this politico report about the other gop' rs were avoiding tweets. dodged the topic entirely. mike turner refused to answer questions about the tweets. john rat cliff quickly whipped out his cell phone and began talking into it even though his home screen mused us today. yeah. go ahead, garrett. >> well, chuck, look. i mean, you can't overstate what an unforced error this was because it undercut what was republicans most effective way of diffusing yovanovitch was to nearly say she doesn't matter. that she wasn't there in the time where so much of the impeachment inquiry is focused it's the cleanest, easiest line that they could possibly use. devin nunes set it up. and for folks who are only

tangentially paying attention, it makes sense on the surface, right? the call happened on july 25th. she wasn't ambassador then. but having the president of the united states, who we've been told all week long isn't going to pay attention to these hearings thinks they're a side show, doesn't think this matters. target yovanovitch while she was on the stand entirely blow up the argument that she does not matter. and it threw all the republicans and their questioning off their talking points. you saw the entire second half of the afternoon. and by the way, this is -- >> well, let me pause you there, garrett. >> yep. >> let me pause you. instead of you stating it, let's play. we put together a montage of what the republicans had to do this afternoon playing cleanup for the president. take a listen. >> love it. >> i wanted to thank you for your 30 years of public service. >> i for one want to thank you so very much for a long service, exemplary service for -- to our country and on behalf of our nation. >> ambassador, i want to tell

you i have a great deal of respect for what you do. >> i want to start by saying i appreciate your years of service. >> 33 years. six senior foreign service performance awards. five state department superior honor awards. the presidential distinguished service award. and the secretary's diplomacy and human rights award. >> i'd like to join all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in thanking you for your service. >> thank you for being here. thank you for your service to our country. >> i -- garrett, i'm -- your -- it's almost i'm speechless at what -- of what the president ended up forcing house republicans to do. >> well, exactly right. you can't undercut her credibility. you can't undercut her expertise. the only move for republicans to make this testimony not damaging to the president is to undercut why it matters in the first place. the idea that she's just not important to the overall impeachment strategy. and that single tweet, that two-tweet thread from the president of the united states, blow that up.

he is -- she is the one witness he's attacked so far. so now, all of a sudden, you have to pay attention to her. it makes republicans' job of defending him that much more difficult. which, you know, if i had a dollar for every time we talked about that in any other context up here, i would retire, chuck. >> mike mcfaul. i want to focus you and ben wittis on the last thing i -- in my introduction that i played from ambassador yovanovitch because it was the rationale. it's the first time i had heard what i think is a coherent rationale for why the urgency of removing him from office. why -- why is it that you can't let the voters make this decision? why is it that you have to be worried about it? frankly, she had a better rationale than i've heard from the democrats. and i mean, i'll read a little bit of it again. what foreign official, corrupt or not, could be blamed for wondering whether the ambassador represents the president's views and what u.s. ambassador could be blamed for harboring the fear that theyca cannot count on our government to support them as they implement state and u.s.

policy and defend u.s. interest. mike? >> well, chuck, that was very forceful and credible statement. and by the way, i thought ambassador yovanovitch did an outstanding job. i watched every single minute of it sitting in front of this camera, in fact. and i want to make sure we don't lose the narrative because what i think is really important about what she said today is two things. both about the timing and the quid pro quo. it actually was a quo before the quid. that is to say back in the spring of this year, giuliani and his sidekicks working with lutsenko were already trying to get the -- the ukrainian government to open an investigation to hunter biden. that is really important. before zelensky shows up, before the oval office, before the military assistance. and what happens is there is an election in ukraine. they change governments. the new government doesn't want to have anything to do with us, as we learned two days ago. they don't want to meddle in american politics so they have to up the ante. they have to say, okay, we're going to withhold the oval office visit.

we're going to add the military assistance. and that's why this big narrative begins, as adam schiff said quite rightly, with the removal of ambassador yovanovitch. >> and, ben, i mean i think that what -- what -- what ended up the big takeaway at this is because of how the president put those republicans in the box or they felt as if they needed to do this. it does leave you walking away going, well, why did they -- why did they recall her? it doesn't make any sense unless they were afraid of her. and i know, mike, you want to chime in here. let me go to ben first and i'll come back to you. >> so i -- i agree with that. you know, it is really significant to me that rudy giuliani comes on the scene, gets involved in this. and the first thing he does is he goes after the ambassador and organizes this campaign against her. and she is, today, still confused about what it was about

her service. except that she is, you know, an opponent of -- of sort of corruption in ukraine. she's still confused about why it was that they went after her. but it is clearly connected to what giuliani, as mike just said, clearly connected to what giuliani then tries to do and also is already trying to do, which is to get the ukrainian government, both previous and the new one, to focus on the bidens and to focus on his conspiracy theories about crowd strike and the 2016 election. and that is why, ultimately, you can't dismiss. i mean, the republicans' suggestion, okay, she's not on the call. she's not -- she's not still in office at the time. you can't dismiss her relevance to this story. >> and, mike, you know what's glaring to me is, and frankly this line of questioning was missing from the democrats. but it's simply this. why didn't -- if -- if -- if

there was -- you know, they didn't even make one effort to work through proper channels with her on this, which is why she's so confused. >> exactly. and, you know, they had this sidebar channel and let's be clear, it didn't work. that's part of why you had to do these other things and get the three amigos involved later in the story. i think it's really, really important for people to understand the phone call was mid-stream in the drug deal, as mr. ambassador bolton calls it, right? it's just one play along the way. but to the point that you're making earlier, chuck, you know, all of those testimonials, ironically, strengthen the case of the other side. because if she's so fantastic, why was she, therefore, removed? and by the way, removed on inauguration day. >> right. >> you know, arguably one of the most important events in ukrainian history. that doesn't make sense. you need an alternative explanation and then you pivot to what we know the president

and his sidekicks were trying to do. >> kelly o'donnell, you wanted to jump in here. >> well, the democrats tried to expand the timeline. the white house wants to begin on july 25th and say the conversation between the two presidents is everything you need to know. and chairman schiff is saying you have to understand who this ambassador is. how respected she was within the state department community. and to then come to an understanding of the fact that the president and rudy giuliani wanted her out of the way. and that's the argument that schiff was making late today. the president reinforced that by tweeting about her. and there was that spontaneous eruption of applause at the end of her testimony as someone who's sat through a lot of hearings on capitol hill, that is a complete rarity. you also have in the president's tweet where he says that president zelensky had raised concerns about the ambassador. in truth, president zelensky did reference her saying that it was president trump who told her she was bad and that he wanted to

agree with the president. so they are definitely trying to show sort of the state of mind in the run-up to the phone call as an important part of what's going on here. and that's why the ambassador, her story, her credibility, her real reluctance today to be critical of the president even in the face of this tweet, she was more hurt and dismayed than even angry. and why that can be so -- so persuasive to people as they're trying to follow all of this. >> garrett, go ahead quickly. you wanted to -- you had something else quickly you wanted to add. go. >> on the expanding of the timeline, right now as we speak, david holmes, state department official who was in ukraine is being deposed in the scif below me about the phone call he overheard between gordon sondland and president trump the day after that zelensky phone call. so that work continues even now. >> kelly, oh before i let you go very quickly, we know the president has already tweeted about roger stone. i -- you know, the -- the pardon

business is in the ether here. how likely is it the president is going to do that? >> well, we can only look to what the president has already done. and he has not pardoned some of the other figures related to the mueller investigation. not paul manafort. not michael cohen. but he has pardoned others who, at times, were considered controversial. like, sheriff joe arpio. so now that this has come to the end of the road for roger stone, it will be interesting to see. we are on, i would say, pardon watch here. our antenna is up to see if there's any indication the president's looking that way. >> kelly o'donnell, garrett haake, ambassador mcfaul. thank you all. ben is the one that gets punished. he's going to come back later in this show. the three of you are relieved of some duty here. in all seriousness, thank you for your expertise and reporting. later, we're going to talk about the growing number of trump associates, one i just referenced, who have been convicted of crimes since the president was elected. that list now includes roger stone found guilty on all counts

today. we got much more ahead on what happened in the impeachment inquiry as the ousted ambassador testified in real time and about her removal from office. her removal from office. of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! i get it all the time. guaranteed monthly income for life. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick.

i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say

"thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

i just wanted to make the point that the president has the right to have their own foreign policy and make their own decisions and with that, i yield back. >> if i could just supplement one of my answers. >> of course. >> so i want to thank you for your service, as well. but what i'd like to say is while i obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to -- to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason. but what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation. >> welcome back. ousted u.s. ambassador ukraine -- ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch testified today that she was quote

kneecapped by the white house and was the target of a smear campaign by president trump and rudy giuliani. joining me now, former advisor to jeb bush. center for american progress, also former advisor to hilary clinton and barack obama. pretty powerful statement by -- by her today. and she -- every time she was very matter of fact. maybe there'd be, you know, without -- it -- it was, to me, very effective. she personalized without it -- without it coming -- coming across at sankt moanous. >> it was really one of the better done hearings we've seen in a long time in the sense that she was compelling. she was steady. and she didn't get knocked off her game. and she didn't try to over talk. she was, yes, no, yes, no. there weren't explanations. >> but also, careful and knew immediately, you know, i can't speak to that. i don't know what he may have been thinking. i can tell you how i felt.

like, she didn't need a lawyer to tell her that. she knew immediately. >> so what it did was kind of try to like take out any of the political bend that perhaps republicans were trying to put in or -- or, you know, put in her mouth, her words, or whatever. and it wound up being quite effective. i think the white house, they're probably wondering whether or not they should schedule more world leader visits so the president will stay out of impeachment as he did on wednesday while he had other business. but -- >> i don't know what he did with erdogan is something that -- i don't -- i mean, i guess -- >> it wasn't the main headline. >> i feel like impeachment distracted us from what was an alarming meeting to be honest. >> well, i felt that was doubly true because she was really up front about the fact that the situation with hunter biden and burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest. this is something i was concerned about. it's really hard to paint her as a naked partisan if she's agreeing with republicans that that made me really

uncomfortable. if the president hadn't launched this tweet attacking her, it -- >> i totally disagree on so many grounds. i think the truth about what she said about burisma and actually if you know the facts, the former prosecutor, the other prosecutor, was -- it was a dormant investigation and i think -- i think something we've seen over the course of all of this is that the continual effort to go after biden in this process is failing. and one of the things i do think is important about this, just to say, one of the things i think is important about what happened today is that people -- people have asked in the media what -- why would we remove the president from this act? and we saw in real time the president of the united states trying to intimidate a witness. and the challenge we have here is if we don't take action, there is further illegal activity that could happen. and i think that's a really important -- people -- the american public can see for

themselves her testimony and the president working to intimidate her in real time. and not -- he's not -- he's not limited by this process right now. if you don't do anything, he's obviously going to take other action in the future. >> it goes back to i think and this is to me what was so powerful about her opening statement is that i do think and -- and -- that she provided the international rationale for this. the danger of him in office in a way -- i -- i think that rationale -- i know where you feel. i think that's more powerful because that's about america. it's about -- >> i hear you. >> i think it's a very powerful rationale. the question, though, is it's been more powerful than what the democrats have said. >> no. the president -- i just want to say one thing. the president did this call a few days after the mueller report exonerated him. so he took actions to affect the future campaign after -- after this. so i think this is part of a

pattern. democrats -- >> i don't disagree. i just think they haven't been making that case. i i don't think they have. i think she today gave them -- gave them a rationale that was more -- that was very powerful and in some ways non-partisan. >> it can be if they take that and run with it. i mean, what you've got to do -- they have a very difficult bar here. not in proving the facts around this. i think they're going to get the facts. i think the -- the republicans' defense today that we -- this is a hearsay witness is -- but because we can't get anyone from the administration who actually was on the call to come -- allowed to come testify -- it's kind of like the killing your parents and then claiming you're an orphan and you deserve sympathy for that. i mean, it's not a credible defense. but democrats have not done a great job clearing the second hurdle, which is, is this a big enough deal that we need to impeach the president and remove him from office? >> she did and also -- >> she connected the dots in ways that they haven't and also she kind of set the tone for this -- her firing did not happen in a vacuum.

that phone call didn't happen in a vacuum. this was all of a piece and here's kind of where it began. and she really spun a narrative that was compelling. the one thing i wonder, though, is what the republicans do as these hearings go on because these hearings are all going to be different. there's more things -- they have different textures about them. and they are hitting the same notes. and that's going to look kind of old after some time. >> and i want to play -- let me play for you the president this afternoon was asked about the witness tampering. and as he usually does, he of course grievanced away. take a listen. number two, guys. >> and i'll tell you about what tampering is. tampering is when a guy like shifty schiff doesn't halet us have lawyers. tampering is when schiff doesn't let us have witnesses. doesn't let us speak. so you know what? i have the right to speak. i have freedom of speech just as other people do. but they've taken away the republicans' rights and i watched today as certain very talented people who wanted to ask questions and they weren't even allowed to ask questions.

republicans. they weren't allowed to ask questions. it's a very sad thing. >> i -- that even somehow comes across more tone deaf after what he did today and after all the praise the republicans lavished on her. >> right. they had a clear game plan going into this. stick with their process arguments. keep praise of the ambassador. make it clear she wasn't there. this was a hearsay witness and that's it. he just keeps stepping on rakes out there. >> the thing about it is, is that, you know, there are people who are watching obviously a lot of people. but there are people who are also going to be tuning into the highlights reel. and what you got on wednesday was it was the call. the call we didn't know about. that was the headline. and today, it's the tweet. and that's going to be the big headline. and -- and he did it himself. >> my guess is you couldn't have asked for a better result from this hearing. >> yeah. no. it did -- it did seem to go well on that score. but i would say i think the republicans have had an argument, which is one of the arguments they've tried here is that it's an attempted crime.

it didn't actually happen. >> doesn't rise to impeachment. not going to defend the action. >> there was an attempt but it didn't all work out. but i think for the public, what they see here is a career public servant that has been praised by republicans who was victimized and feels victimized by a smear campaign organized by the president of the united states. and that seems like a real wrong in a criminal process. >> i want to get to the president. this is -- obviously, he's his own worst enemy most of the time. but he is beyond rattled. i want to put up number 11, guys, this full screen. look at the number of tweets. this is somebody not paying attention to these things. today, it's already been 32 tweets from his account. 49 on wednesday. 179 since sunday. in a month, he's near 1,000 tweets. i think that took for some people it took a year to get to 1,000 tweets that they've authored. the -- the -- the president

spent a third of his louisiana about this, michael steele. whatever we may think about where this is headed in impeachment, he's not helping his re-election. >> no, it's in his head. i don't know that what happened today moved the needle in terms of the outcome in the house or the outcome in the senate. and so by february of 2020, we could be talking about the complete exoneration and vindication and he's moving full steam ahead. but right now, they're in his head. right now, they're really in haze head. >> he's not going to get -- it's not going to get better in that sense. >> not next week. not next week. >> it's just going to keep building. >> the gordon sondland day is just going to -- the head could explode. >> so, you know, what the president is doing is the opposite of compartmentalization. he's not communicating to the american public that he's concerned about how they're doing. >> he did healthcare prices today. what would bill clinton have done at that event? right? >> never talked about the eitc. >> and he would have probably gone three hours.

gone too long on a policy thing. >> i was there. we went on and on because we're getting covered live. but i would say i mean i think the -- the big issue also for the re-elect is, you know, president clinton did try to communicate moment by moment. there's this terrible thing happening but i am focused on you and your problems. and donald trump is incapable of doing that. and that also sends a message to the public as he faces re-election, which is, you know, that he's not actually making any difference in their lives. >> he said it himself last night. >> i know. >> he said my republican friends tell me this impeachment is great. keep it going. and i say, no, no, no. i'd like you to end it. when your thought bubbles -- you tell us everything that's in your head? >> you also have to remember this is not an attempt to put secretary clinton in the office. it's to put mike pence in there. if this continues to spiral, do you have smart people in the republican conference in the senate start saying are we better off with mike pence?

>> exactly. exactly. >> especially, the minute it is set, that's when you should bet against it. right? so everybody assumes we know what the answer is. carol lee, mitch mcconnell, the only person more transactional than donald trump is mitch mcconnell. whatever protects his majority. >> he's going to do whatever is in his party's interest. >> senators are not looking so great in polls in the last couple weeks. i mean, their numbers have been trending downwards and i think that's one of the reasons mitch mcconnell is trying to have a real open process because he realizes if he jams this through in a day, the american people will be -- >> they're not going to like it. but my understanding, if he had 51 votes to jam it through, they would be talking about that more. the fact of the matter is there are not 51 votes. >> right. >> to stop to basically not have a real trial. >> yeah. >> that's the problem he has. whether it's romney, murkowski, or someone up for re-election like susan collins. >> and the problem is that not only do you -- the president's

always going to step on any message that republicans are going to want to do but the white house operation around him is just not functioning. i mean, today they released the first transcript of his call on april 21st with president zelensky of ukraine. and there was a -- they didn't bother to check that there was something in the readout that was -- so you're like, you know, they're trying to put things out there to get some sort of traction and they can't even do that. >> it's always communications 101. it is understaffed, i don't know what you want to blame it on. >> the facts are bad. >> both things are true. >> this was inept. >> yeah. i got off the press list because it was a typo in everything i got. drive me crazy. >> there have been lots of -- i mean, i think one of the challenges with coordinating around this and i've worked on the other side of this. when you have a series of bad facts and a president who's unwilling to accept the bad facts, they have to say one thing when the facts are the other. that's just the problem they have. >> it's his inability to

compartmentalize that is probably going to do this party in if they're not careful. thank you. up next, roger stone guilty on all counts. what does it mean for the mueller report? and is a presidential pardon on the table? and is a presidential pardon on the table? without my medication, my small tremors would be extreme. without it, i cannot write my name. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right.

(woman) you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. (vo) align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. (woman) you could say align puts the "pro" in probiotic. so where you go, the pro goes. (vo) go with align. the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies. with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health. i need all the breaks, that i can get.

at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

welcome back. while the president was being accused of witness intimidation today, one of his long time associates was found guilty of witness tampering. roger stone convicted on all seven counts that were brought against him as part of the special counsel robert mueller's russia investigation. prosecutors accuse stone of obstructing congressional investigation and interference in the 2016 election, as well as lying to lawmakers. stone is now the sixth trump aide or advisor to be convicted as part of the mueller investigation. interestingly, all of them have either been convicted by a jury or pleaded guilty to lying in some form. either lying to federal investigators or lying to lawmakers. with me now is glenn kershner, former federal prosecutor, now nbc legal analyst.

was in the courtroom for much of the trial. and ben wittes is back. also, an nbc legal analyst. so, glenn, you've been there for -- were you surprised by this verdict? >> not at all. >> slam dunk, huh? >> from the moment i saw the prosecutors give their opening statement and they promised the jury that they would prove the case largely by showing the jury e-mails and text messages from roger stone proving that he lied to congress. i knew it was going to be a very strong case on the evidence. sure enough, the jury really didn't deliberate for much more than a day before banging him out on all seven felony counts. >> what'd you make of the defendant? it didn't seem like they put up much of one? >> what defense? >> why? >> the defense was, you know what, what's little lie to congress? it's not that important. >> why did they make that their defense? >> because they didn't have anything else. i think you could've gotten the best legal team around, not saying these folks were not particularly strong. it wouldn't have mattered.

when you say in your e-mails things that squarely contradict what you told congress under oath, your defense has to be, well, i was lying in my e-mails and my text message lgs s to al friends and associates about my life. and when i told congress i don't know nothing about nothing, that was the truth. i mean, that dog is not gonna hunt. >> so, ben, what does this mean for the mueller investigation? and i say this because i know it's technically closed. and yet, two people that may know what happened essentially got away with lying to mueller and got away and mueller -- we do not know what happened with wikileaks. we do not know what happened with these oligarchs because manafort and stone successfully thwarted this investigation. >> correct. you know, that is not an atypical outcome in a federal criminal investigation that people, you know, suck it up and do their time rather than turn

around and cooperate. and, you know, neither paul manafort with whom the mueller team did have a cooperation agreement that didn't work out so well for them. nor roger stone, who is a, you know, liar under just about any circumstanc circumstances isn't especially good witness or cooperator. >> right. >> so, you know, i do think there's big open questions at the end of the mueller investigation. on the other hand, it's a fairly typical thing in a major federal investigation. you go as far as you can go and that's as far as you can go. >> i -- i -- is it, though? i mean, did they shut this down too soon? because i -- it -- it seems to me, number one, they never finished the wikileaks investigation. unless -- unless there's a bunch of stuff we don't know and they're waiting to see what they're going to do with assange. but it feels like to me they've never successfully finished that investigation. that's number one. and -- and we still don't know

what the role was, which was the russian business partner of manafort's. that whole episode. it -- it's sort of like -- it's like you watched -- binged some season and they left these two questions unanswered that might actually change the entire outcome of the -- of the investigation. >> and look, it would be a very different picture if we had custody of constantine. but last i checked, he was comfortably in moscow. and julian assange, who is in custody, is at this point not in our custody. and so, you know, if you want to finish this investigation and satisfy yourself that you know everything these guys know, you got to get them. >> what's a likely sentence here for stone that's realistic? >> so you know the statutory max is 50 years. nobody gets the statutory max because we have the federal sentencing guidelines. my guess, chuck, is his numbers once they do a background investigation and a pre-sentence report will be somewhere in the neighborhood of between five and ten years. but one other thing i would do

if i was the prosecutor in this case. now that stone is convicted, i would step back to him. i've done it many times as a prosecutor. i would get somebody convicted if they wouldn't come on board up front and i really needed them. i'd go back to them. i'd say, how about now, sport? now, you're facing a whole lot of time. >> doesn't he want to bet on the pardon? >> he may but we can't adjust ourselves as prosecutors by, you know, speculating that he might get a pardon. so what i would do is step back to him. he would still get an opportunity to get some credit and you know what? he is a horribly incredible witness so we may never put him on the stand but all the intel the prosecutors could get about what he knows over the last 40 years about trump's crimes, including state crimes in new york. that could be really valuable. >> speaking of new york, let's turn to rudy giuliani. who may be yet another one. we -- we know a little bit more about this investigation. it -- it looks to me where he's most vulnerable, ben, is on this issue of not -- basically doing

foreign lobbying without telling the government. >> so that's one area. but another area is the substantive activity that fruman and -- and parnas were engaged in which, you know, it just doesn't smell altogether kosher and this was -- >> they may be cooperating. we don't know if both of them are but at least one may be cooperating. >> we're still in the very early stages of the federal government bringing the force of its coercive pressures on them. and, you know, the likelihood that one or both of them ends up in a cooperative posture is not -- not trivial. and i think giuliani would be very well-advised to keep his mouth shut and get some very good representation. >> do you ever investigate a former u.s. attorney? you ever been stuck having to do that? >> that's a new -- that's a new one on me and i've prosecuted rico cases but never one like that. >> is this one of those -- i'm tougher on people who i think know better in my own head.

i know i do that. is this one of those cases where rudy, he's going to get -- it's -- he is going to get the toughest type of prosecution because prosecutors like of all people to do this to us. or is that how it works? or could he have some friendlies over there? >> it's tough to figure out. first of all, how rudy is going to play it because based on what we've seen and particularly if parnas flips, rudy has got to be looking at handcuffs sometime soon. and then he's got to decide. >> rudy, roger, paul. man, all in jail. >> and, chuck, what does he do? as a former u.s. attorney, does he want to run the risk of ending up in the bureau of prisons where he will not find a lot of friends in the inmate population. and of course -- >> you think he has to really worry about prison time? >> i do. i do. given what we see him doing now in at least coordination, maybe collusion and maybe conspiracy with the parnas's and the

frumans of the world, this looks like it could get really exciting for rudy giuliani. >> the -- the line of people seeking pardons from president trump's getting longer. what -- is there any defense mechanism here for democrats or for the prosecutors here? >> there is no legal defense mechanism. the president has the absolute authority to pardon anybody he wants except maybe himself and except in cases of impeachment. the only defense you have is the very clear statement that the house of representatives will regard a self-interested pardon of paul manafort or roger stone as an impeachable offense. deterrence is the only defense you've got. >> glen ken kershner, ben witte thank you for your expertise. got more on rudy, roger, and all the president's men. the many, many, many times rudy giuliani's name came up in today's hearing. giuliani's name came up in today's hearing. not actors, who've got their eczema

under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last.

in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options. we have some great new ideas that we want to present to you today. [son]: who are you talking to? [son]: that guy's scary. the first item on the list is selecting a chairman for the... for the advisory board what's this? as well as use the remaining... child care options run out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't.

guaranteed monthly income for life. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. any comments doug? yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. liberty. liberty. liberty. liber♪y when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪

♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ secret of his desire to get ukraine to open investigations into the bidens. as well as the conspiracy theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. >> i do not understand mr. giuliani's motives for attacking me. nor can i offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me. >> you testified about when you first learned that mayor giuliani and some of his

associates were -- had a concerted campaign against you. when did that first come to your attention? >> we were picking up rumors from ukrainians. i think, you know, kind of in the november/december 2018 time period. >> "the wall street journal" reported that federal prosecutors in manhattan are investigating whether rudy giuliani stood to personally profit from that liquified natural gas venture. do you have any knowledge of that? >> no, i do not. >> maybe we should talk to rudy, huh? >> welcome back. clearly, rudy giuliani was a major focus of today's impeachmenttoday's impeachment hearing. carl lee, michael steele are back. i want to play one more longer sound bite here, it's the one underneath. i guess it doesn't have a number on it, but it's yovanovitch on all of her contacts with rudy. >> with respect to mayor giuliani, i have had only

minimal contact with him, a total of three, none related to the events at issue. i do not understand mr. giuliani's motives for attacking me nor can i offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me. clearly no one at the state department did. what i can say is that mr. giuliani should have known those claims were suspect coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anticorruption policy in ukraine. >> there is a missing piece here which is where did rudy giuliani find out who he should go to in ukraine to help do these things? we think maybe paul manafort played a role in this weird go-between with sean hannity and all this business, but that was an unknown that did not get surfaced today. what sent giuliani down this

rabbit hole? >> what exactly, that's the question. who sent him there, how did it get started, and how was it -- once it got started, how did they figure out how to execute it? what were all the connections that were made? and that's perhaps something that we're going to learn through the investigation. >> there's been odd contact, right, between manafort and hannity, michael steele. and then the question is -- again it does look like paul manafort somehow got to giuliani, hey, these guys know how to stir the pot. go meet these guys in ukraine. >> right. and the question, i guess, is whether we're -- we seem to have conflated in the president's mind at least these things that are presumably financial interest of his attorney and things that are his personal interest, the conspiracy theory that they were involved in election interference and the dirt on the bidens. and was rudy giuliani playing him to his own financial advantage and who else might have been involved? >> kind of looks like that.

>> or why not? >> it looks like he's an international lobbyist or arms dealer, you need an energy contract and i'll give you a security contract. the president needs a biden investigation. giuliani seemed to have bizarre clients con vrjing at the same time. >> there is a through line. rudy giuliani's business partners are under indictment now. >> we may find out more if we were talking about this if fruman or parnas ends up flipping. >> for all we know, they are sharing information. we don't know. the other thing we should be really clear about is this crazy crowdstrike theory was a theory that russian military intelligence was promoting. so, the president is engaged in russian military intelligence or in the theories promoted by russian military intelligence, and rudy giuliani has business partners connected to ukrainian oligarchs who are engaged in this behavior. we might see a deep connection

between those two elements. we don't know yet. it is an oddity the president's behavior when it comes to russia that has been a throughline of this entire presidency and we saw it again on wednesday with his behavior related to turkey and syria. >> he cannot -- it is the weirdest thing. michael steele -- >> maybe it's not so weird. >> no. again, i think you've got to ask this question which is why it is that the president is implementing vladimir putin's two biggest foreign policy priorities? >> right. right. >> nobody has an answer, especially when the president's own advisers have all asked him not to do that. >> right, and explain to him why it's not a good idea, why it will hurt america's national interest and he does it anyway. i think it's interesting that the investigation of giuliani is being done by real prosecutors in a court rather than congressional investigators because i think that gives them a lot more tools. >> it's trump appointed prosecutors in sdny. that's going to make it even

more credible. >> the thing i found interesting in the wall stre"wall street jo story, you get this sense that giuliani was trying to make money for himself but in doing that -- >> he has a real cash issue. he seems to have a financial issue, giuliani. >> yes, absolutely. if you look at what his associates were doing in these meetings to get this pole into ukrainian pipeline built, they were raising biden in 2016 in the same meetings. it's all kind of muksed and yix wonder what the motivation and whether the motivation was aware of what giuliani was trying to do. >> i would say we have no indication that this really all originates with rudy giuliani when it comes to crowdstrike and all those issues. it seems like there are many possible sources but we may have well been raised in direct conversations with vladimir putin for all we know. but it's not entirely clear -- >> this gets at -- i think the

democrats, i understand why they want to limit it. but i think it's perfectly legitimate that i don't know why they haven't tried to figure out a way to get the putin phone calls. >> i think the challenge which i'm all for getting the putin phone calls, the courts could make this go a lot longer. >> it is. it's the court fight. thank you very much. we'll be right back. ourt fight thank you very much. we'll be right back. ♪ 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 more secure diaper closure. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. we are people helping people. i need all the breaks, that i can get. even those who don't have a voice. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪

applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu.

that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back monday with more "meet the press daily" and if it's sunday, it's "meet the press on nbc." i'll talk to two senators, chris murphy and ron johnson. and the new democratic presidential candidate deval patrick. good evening chuck. thank you very much we have breaking coverage of a momentous impeachment event today. donald trump's long time adviser roger stone convicted of the very obstruction trump stands accused of. i wish you a good evening on this friday night. we are capping a week which has certainly been one of the objectively worst of president trump's entire time iic