this marathon week. thanks to frank, david, eugene, chuck, karine. ari melber and maya and claire and everyone who was with me all day and all week. that does it for this hour. "mtp daily with chuck todd" starts now. >> welcome to thursday. "meet the press" daily, and good evening, i'm chuck todd in washington where there's been another day in dramatic testimony in the house impeachment inquiry and it capped off a dizzying week of public hearings. the house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff closed today's hearings with what sounded like the democrats' closing argument. leaving a lot of us here in washington with the impression democrats are finished with this phase of the inquiry. here he is speaking in personal terms about why he's supporting

impeachment. >> i will tell you why i could resist no more. and it came down to this. it came down to actually it came down to timing. it came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, the day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u.s. election. that says to me this president believes he is above the law. beyond accountability. and in my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. and i would just say to people watching here at home and around

the world, in the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. adjourned. >> i believe quoting elijah cummings. that came after we heard today from the 11th and 12th witnesses in these public hearings. collectively, this group has given democrats more than enough evidence to win an argument in a court of law, and perhaps impeach the president in the house of representatives, but you have to ask yourself, do the democrats have enough evidence to win a political argument and remove the president in a senate trial? that's a question that they have yet to answer. look, it's possible that kind of evidence just won't exist with today's republican party and its loyalty to this president. but what the last 48 hours of testimony have made clear, in very dramatic fashion, if you will, is that there's a whole mountain of leads for democrats to follow if they choose to. they don't need to stop this

investigation. they have enough evidence for what they have started this investigation on, but oh, my, have they gotten leads for a butch of other stuff. today we heard testimony from david holmes who heard that infamous call between sondland and president trump, and then there was fiona hill, one of the white house's former top russia experts. it was hill who delivered some of the most riveting testimony today while quarreling with republicans on the committee because she took a clear shot at the president's allies for backing conspiracy theory. she noted these conspeariracy theories have originated in russian ozby russia to damage our interests. >> based on questions and statements i have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and

propagated by the russian security services themselves. i refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate theory that ukraine, not russia, attacked us in 2016. right now, russia security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. we're running out of time to stop them, and the cost of this investigation, i would ask that you please not promote political derived falsehoods that advance russian interests. >> well, despite the warn, that didn't happen. some republicans on the committee fired back they do not dispute russia interfered in the 2016 election, but they did continue to advance russian disinformation about ukraine interfering in this -- in the election. there were many other headlines from today's proceedings including fiona hill warning gordon sondland that his domestic political errand would blow up in their faces. we'll have more on that in a moment. now this week's hearings are done. democrats have to start thinking about how they're going to land

this plane. let's start with garrett haake, he joins me from capitol hill. garrett, that seems to be the question here. how are they going to land the plane? is this -- are they going to pass this off to judiciary and we start a new round of hearings there? or are they going to start pursuing what appear to be some leads worth pursuing in this investigation? be it additional testimony like john bolton or going further and investigating the weird energy company deal that rudy giuliani, the two indicted guys, and rick perry apparently also were part of? >> chuck, democrats i have been talking to all week long, and especially at conclusion of today's hearing feel they have enough evidence to move forward and hand this off to the judiciary committee. they were very pleased with the performance of fiona hill today. they felt like she was a capstone, a consistent story told here, consistent evidence all week long. at least the democrats i talked to on the committee feel like they're ready to pass it off to the judiciary committee. you have a little more than a

week until congress is back in session. there should be plenty of time if intel decides to go this route to write up their report. and when congress comes back into session in december, hand it to the judiciary committee and begin the next steps. i have not heard any appetite from democrats i have talked to to pursue the john bolton case any further here. fiona hill, several of them felt like was a pretty good proxy for john bolton. you got the damaging bolton quotes without the risk or the delay that you would take in pursuing bolton. in mid-december, there was some frustration bolton will tell his side of the story for a book deal for a couple million bucks but he won't do it for congress. as to the ukrainian energy deals, there's a greater likelihood of a spin-off than a sequel. it's more likely you might see other committees, other investigatory interests in that. but democrats believe it's time to move it forward. that will ultimately be adam schiff's call. you can also get a sense from the republicans wrapping up

their questioning today that they thought this was their last crack at it. will hurd, for example, gave what sounded like a speech on the floor ahead of an impeachment vote. he was so done with this investigative side of things. >> garrett, let me avsk you, i understand they believe they have enough facts and substance. i think that's clear. do they at all want to see if they get more in order to convince a will hurd to come over, convince -- again, creating a stronger political environment for the ultimate ask that they may be asking here, kicking out the president. >> i think watching these hearings all week long, and i was in every one of these hearings for hours at a time, the arguments being made were not aimed at their republican colleagues. they were aimed at the public, so i think the republicans in the house will be a lagging indicator here. i think if you see public perception change, that's when perhaps republicans in the house

side would change their minds. and i think that's extraordinarily unlikely. i think it's far more likely you see a party line vote when this gets to the floor, but i will say two things. number one, think about it. almost every day this week, we had some new piece of information that neither party was prepared for beyond what they knew from the depositions. new witnesses, changed depositions. staffers coming forward with additional emails and notes. that could still continue beyond the open hearing phase, and the other x factor is the president. the president could, and we saw it this week, or last week was it now, with yovanovitch, could still make this worse for himself in the way that he chooses to engage with the inquiry. and democrats could look at that as another possible source of things that could change republicans' minds, but i have a really hard time imagining how more open hearings will change the minds of republicans who feel like they have to defend the president when they're in public and on television. >> it's an amazing conundrum that this, that our current

politics puts us in where facts are trumped by so much else. >> garrett haake, thank you very much. with me now, former u.s. ambassador to russia and analyst michael mcfaul, and andrew weissmann, head of the fraud section of the department of just, now an nbc news legal analyst. gentlemen, andrew, let me start with you. i want to play what appeared to be denny heck's closing argument, and it was taking evidence that he learned, he was basically trying to give the closing argument on this ukraine quid pro quo. i want you to grade him after we hear it. take a listen. >> the president didn't solicit campaign assistance from ukraine in a clear violation of federal law. yes, he did. the president didn't withhold vital military assistance in furtherance of his objective to obtain that campaign assistance. yes, he did. rudy giuliani was acting just on

his own, kind of as a rogue. no, he wasn't. that all this is business as usual. this happens all the time, and stems from a principled interest. no, it isn't, and no, it wasn't. and that it's okay to attack patriotic diplomats in public service if they stand in your way and have the courage to speak up. no, it isn't. those are just some of the big lies, but here's the big truth. the president did it. he did it. >> andrew, it just struck me as sort of a country lawyer. i say that as a compliment to congressman heck. i'm going to do this in plain language. how did he do? >> i think he did pretty well. i tend to try and discount things that involve sort of style, even though that matters.

it matters, obviously, for voters in congress. it matters for the actual voters in elections. it matters even if you're doing a criminal trial, as i would do. but on substance, this is really not about the facts. the facts have been unbelievably clear. you had two and more compelling witnesses today saying yes, there was a quid pro quo. and by the way, everybody knew it. so this is not about the facts. it's a question of, you know, what are the voters, whether it's the voters in congress or whether it's the voters in the election that's coming up, are going to care. i think that's really the issue. it's not sort of packaging. >> i'm having a quick flashback to the o.j. trial, frankly, where the facts were damning, but it didn't matter. and yet, he was innocent, but everybody knew he was guilty. are we about to head into a situation like that where he's

going to get acquitted and yet everybody knew he was guilty? >> just to take the republican side of this, it is definitely true that the standard should be really high. in a criminal case, you have an actual standard, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. and here, you are asking to -- the congress to remove a president. so it makes sense that you would want both the crime, so to speak, the high crime and misdemeanor to be serious, and you would want the proof to be compelling. so i think the republicans are right to demand that kind of proof. but i think that's where adam schiff, i thought, in his closing statement was right to compare this to watergate. because there, you had another president who was cheating on the election or trying to. which is exactly what is going on here, where you have the president of the united states trying to gin up a phony criminal investigation into who

he thought would be his most damaging political rival, without ever of course revealing he spend $400 million to get that to happen. but what i thought was so compelling about the two witnesses today was the length he was willing to stoop to, to get that investigation going. and that's where feouna hill was really the adult in the room, talking about just how damaging that is to american interests. and she was really on an emotional level, was really one of the highlights of this entire two weeks. >> mike mcfaul, do you feel like they should stop investigating? i sit there, and look, we have got unfollowed up leads today. i think fiona hill put to bed this idea that sondland and volker somehow didn't realize burisma and biden were the same thing. but one part of me says, well, don't you want to bring them back and clarify that? the weird energy deal that is sort of hovering in the background that i know srs dny is looking at part of, there are

some unpursued things here, and i guess the question is, do you think it's a mistake to not go down that road, or do you think, you know what, put a fence around this? >> well, first thing i want to say, chuck, i think i have watched almost every single hearing. and what was clear to me, i mean, the facts were clear from the beginning, right? but what was clear to me is that the republicans had different arguments that just kept falling off. i'm not a lawyer, but i do, you know, i do judge high school debate, and what you do is pull those arguments across the line, and every single argument they basically gave up on. so heresy, they're pushing that hard, then they gave up on it. you didn't really hear that military assistance was linked to this quid pro quo, to these investigations. they gave up on it. by the end of today, they gave up completely. they weren't asking questions. >> they were afraid of fiona hill. >> rightly, they should be. i have known fiona for three decades and i knew she was going to be a compelling witness. i want to underscore something

that i think gets a little lost in this. remember, fiona hill has worked longer for president trump than almost anybody else. two and a half years. how many people can you name that have worked for president trump for two and a half years? she was the top adviser, senior director, working at the white house. a job i used to have. working on russia and ukraine and all of europe. her portfolio was bigger than mine. when she then said i figured out that there was this alternative path that sondland and these three amigos were running, that just put to me starkly what the foreign policy was and what the drug deal was on the other side. and i think she was very compelling that way. now, to your question, yeah, would i like more people? of course i would. i've got 100 questions. and by the way, you know, i want to know more about lev parnas, what money he was giving to whom and there's a lot of stuff there that sounds creepy to me. whether or not that's the political right thing to do or

not, i'm going to turn it back to you, chuck. >> mike, i want to throw one more thing at you. fiona hill in her opening statement, essentially makes a request to say please be careful, essentially, taking russian created conspiracy theories and reiterating them. they got really defensive over that. and yet, let me play a montage here of russian created propaganda seeping into the hearings. here it is. >> so at the end of the day, the commander in chief concerned about 2016 election meddling by ukraine, sounds like just earlier testified that you weren't aware of that. >> at the same time, certain ukrainians did work against candidate trump. some with the dnc. and if that's debunked, why is it mr. schiff has denied alexander chalupa from testifying to come forward and debunk it. was it good for the country, the

dnc, to pay christopher steele to dig up dirt with other foreign services on their political rival? >> devon archer, former board member from burisma, alexander chalu chalupa, who admitted she provided anti-trump information to the dnc and hillary clinton. nelly orr, who helped create the ridiculous steele dossier. >> i mean, it was alarming how easily they have all done this, but the issue here, mike, i think they genuinely believe some of this stuff. >> it was really disheartening for me to hear that. it was really heartening for me to hear fiona, dr. feouna hill, i'm sorry, i shouldn't call her fiona. i knew her before she was a doctor, by the way, i think. to try to dispel it. and by the way, chuck, i just published a piece in "the washington post" this week warning americans about how we cannot become complicit in running putin propaganda into

our debates about politics. that's exactly what you just played there. it really scares me for 2020, too, by the way. she did something very clever, though, i thought. she said look, i think there were some certain things that was bad judgment, that the ukrainian ambassador published that op-ed piece, for instance. but then she said, i want to remind you, dozens of countries did the same thing. and we didn't withdraw military assistance or pull out of nato because the united kingdom did that, because the bbc was running similar things. i thought that was a very effective argument by fiona. and the second thing i want to underscore, remember, the president of the united states is also doing this. when he's asking for an investigation of 2016, what does he say? i want to investigate crowdstrike? and the dnc server? as if that's been shipped to ukraine. that is putin's talking points about what happened in 2016. not just to get on the

ukrainians but to say hey, it wasn't me. it was them. and you know, fiona's worked for the president for two and a half years. she had to juggle that kind of disinformation noise in the background all the time. i thought it was important she said what she did today. i hope more americans will listen to that and not play along with putin's playbook as we roll up to 2020. >> andrew weissmann, you have had to deal with this. when you sort of -- an investigation, you know there's more to get, but the amount of time it might take to get that information you have to weigh versus okay, i have to move to my next phase. and it's clear what adam schiff and all these democrats are doing. how do you -- how did you guys strike that balance? >> so i'm trained by robert mueller, famously impatient person. so one of the standard phrases is, you don't let the perfect be an enemy of the good. if you have enough to bring a criminal case, go forward.

you don't have to boil the ocean. so i think there's a lot to be said for that. obviously, this is not just that circumstance, because there are a lot of other factors. i would say that it is not really an either/or. it is true that the democrats could make a decision that they want additional win aal winces certainly additional documents because as sure as we're all sitting here, we know those documents are going to be devastating. and that's the reason they're not being turned over. but it's not the case that just if the democrats decide not to sort of go down that rabbit hole that they're not going to come out in other ways. there can be a criminal investigation, and it's only the president who is temporarily immune, according to justice department policy. from being indicted. but that doesn't apply to anyone else. so those documents could be subpoenaed. they could obviously also be foiaed, meaning there's a civil process for getting the

documents as well. it's not the case if the democrats decide not to go forward with getting more, they won't eventually come out. >> very quickly, i want to ask you this question. we know sdny is investigating parnas and rudy and furman. if adam schiff or the judiciary committee wanted some access either to them as witnesses or anything, is that something bill barr would have to approve? >> well, you know, the new york prosecutors are notoriously very independent. so that normally would not go to the level of the attorney general or even the deputy attorney general. and that would be done at a much lower level. but that is a norm. and it's very hard to apply norms in the current environment we're in. but if this was any other time, i would say no, that would not be a typical process. but it wouldn't necessarily also be unheard of given how public this proceeding is. >> all right. ambassador mike mcfall, andrew

weissmann, thank you for your expertise. with me from capitol hill one of the -- part of the impeachment inquiry. democratic congressman eric swalwell. good to see you, sir. >> you, too. thanks, chuck. >> it sounds like you guys are done with this phase. is that a fair dedictionary have you guys not made this decision yet? >> we're done for the day, probably for the week. we're still going to continue our investigation, but there are no public hearings scheduled as of yet. >> what more witnesses -- let me ask you this. it doesn't sound like there's an appetite, our own reporting says there's not a huge appetite to see more witnesses, whether it's to pursue to go further, try to get john bolton or to pursue to try to figure out what the energy deal was that giuliani and parry and all of that business. is that correct reporting that

there's not an ape tite for that on the committee. >> there's not an appetite by the president. if he's going to block perry and mulvaney and pompeo from coming forwa forward, we believe we have abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and the impeachable offense of bribery. we think the only relevancy to those witnesses at this point is the fact the president won't let them come in. if they could help him at all, you would be assured he would allow them to come in. >> look, the facts are one thing, and we live in a political environment. you have enough evident -- it sounds like, and i get where you're coming from. you have enough evidence to back up those charges. but it's not a court of law. if you're trying to make the political case, you probably need more republicans to turn on the president or to flip on the president. how much effort do you think needs to be made on your side of things to make that political case?

>> these facts will stand the test of time. the question now is will they stand the test of courage by republicans. because the evidence is overwhelming. they're not really in dispute at all, chuck. i think it's really a matter of, is this what we want to turn over to our children? a democracy where a president can leverage the power of the office to invite a foreign government to cheat an election and so it's really will my republican colleagues use their eyes and their ears to listen to and hear from their constituents. >> did it disappoint you that you couldn't even convince will hurd. he basically said he hadn't seen anything impeachable. one could argue he was probably the most open-minded republican on that panel. that's not an insignificant development, no? politically. >> that's something that, you know, he's going to have to deal with as far as his conscience, his constituents, and his interpretation of the constitution. i'll wait for any vote, if it comes to that, but you know, the evidence is, i think,

overwhelming, chuck. >> is there any threat here that you wish you would continue to pursue that you fear you may not? >> you know, i wish the president would cooperate. and your last guest, andrew weissmann, an experienced prosecutor, i promise you almost every investigation he's been a part of was very much document driven, looking at text messages, emails, financial records. here, it's probably the biggest investigation ever in america that has been witness driven. we have not had the documents from the state department, from the white house, but we have had courageous people come forward and defy the president's lawless orders, and that has aided us tremendously. i promise you, if we could just pick ten documents, our top ten documents to get from the white house and the state department, this case would be done and the president, i think, would probably have no defense at all. >> is there a -- let me ask you this. how long should you fight for that in court? you got the don mcgahn court fight. you might get a ruling on monday

and maybe that opens the door to bolton and others. we don't know. we'll see what happens. "the new york times" editorial was sort of warning the intel committee, don't rush this. don't look like you're trying to hurry up and get to the senate trial or hurry up. how long should you have that court fight to try to get those documents? >> chuck, the balance here, and it's a very fair question, is the integrity of the ballot box and the court process. because the president and that call with the president of ukraine invoked an upcoming election and his political opponent, we have to make sure the upcoming election is pure and free from outside interference. so if the president is just going to go to court, this could take nine to 12 months, and we could lose our democracy, so we don't have the, you know, we don't have time on our side here. we have the urgency of an upcoming election and a president who is testing our democracy. >> very quickly, john bolton. how hard are you going to fight to get him to testify? >> look, three of john bolton's deputies came in. they had the courage to provide

truthful testimony, defy the president's lawless orders. if mr. bolton doesn't want to come in and focus more on writing his book, history will judge him for that and also judge that the president had a consciousness of guilt and told him not to come in. >> congressman eric swalwell, democrat from california, appreciate you coming on. >> my pleasure. >> up next, as i said, the evidence is piled up in the democrats' favor, but this isn't a legal fight. it's a political one. we have more on that next. so we're in this little town near salerno

and everyone has dad's eyebrows! we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs. it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] ththank you. season, liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ that's ensure max protein,

with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. frustrated that clean clothes you want to wear always seem to need an iron? try bounce wrinkle guard dryer sheets. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets! bounce out wrinkles. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. [ sigh ] not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please. [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience.

are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call... for a free kohler® nightlight toilet seat with in-home quote or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. as we mentioned, another dramatic day of testimony on capitol hill, as one of the white house's former top russia experts delivered compelling testimony about what it was like to be in the middle of an apparent scheme to press ukraine to investigate the president's political rivals. here's some of her testimony about her interactions with gordon sondland. >> he wasn't coordinating with us because we weren't doing the same thing he was doing.

so i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all of the meetings he was having. and he said to me, but i'm briefing the president. i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney. i'm have talked to ambassador bolton, who else do i have to deal with. it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people that you need to know, that he was absolutely right. because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign diverged. so he was correct. and i had not put my finger on that at the moment, but i was irritated with him and angry he wasn't fully coordinating. i did say to him, ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up, can here we are. >> joining me now to help us unpack the past few days of testimony, past two weeks, my colleague heidi przybyla.

michael steel, maria teresa kumar, and fiona hill former colleague, maybe a future one, ben wittes who is also an nbc analyst. heidi, i want to put up, guys, i want to put up full screen number two. because full screen number two is the email gordon sond land sent that these are basically all the people in the loop in the investigation from donald trump, mike pence, giuliani, pompeo, bolton, rick perry, mccormick, blair. these are all people who haven't testified. in a normer investigation, you would be like, oh, my god, they have to figure out how to get these people. should they be done? >> well, this is the circle we're in because republicans say everything is heresy, and the reason why they are making that case is because all of the people, and there were so many of them who were in on it, will

not testify, will not provide documents, but the thing is, it's a farce that they don't have any first-hand witnesses. they have first-hand witnesses. they have david holmes, who heard the transaction actually being completed through the phone. he heard d got the investigation. you have fiona hill who was in the meeting with gordon sondland when he said we have a deal. so it is not accurate to say that they don't have first-hand information. it's just that the republicans don't see the political imperative of moving on this right now. when you saw will hurd do what he did, i think we all knew at that moment there is not going to be movement in the gop. >> michael, you nodded your head on the will hurd moment. it's just one. >> if you're going to get anyone -- >> the was him. >> today is another day where everything happened and nothing changed. we still look like we're on track for a party line or almost party line vote to pass articles of impeachment in the house.

probably a party line or almost party line vote to dismiss those articles in the senate. i do think, though, to the question you have been asking today, it's not like house democrats have one bullet in the gun. they can pass articles of impeachment and continue to conduct oversight into the new year. it's not as if they're going to pass it and then transition to designating rivers as wild and scenic and renaming post offices. they're going to continue to investigate. >> do they need to make that clearer? because frankly, i think you don't want these witnesses to think they're out of -- you know, gordon sondland to me is somebody that there's enough i don't recalls and enough other people, he's squeezable if you really wanted to. >> he's saving himself. i think he realizes -- >> i don't kneif he's finished saving himself. >> he realizes, first, his job is not done, but also fiona apple -- fiona apple. >> i'm glad you did it. i did it all day. i feared it all day. >> we need levity today. we need fiona apple. your tunes right now.

in all fairness, fiona hill laid out a world that i think is really difficult for sondland and trump to navigate. she is a consummate public servant. she came into her position to defend democracy and export it. that is the juxtaposition on the trump world view where it's not about institutions. it's all about him. that's why i think the testimony of fiona hill was so powerful, because she reminded us what the underpinnings are of why they do the work they do. >> it's funny you bring that up. ben, i want to play for you fiona hill and dan goldman's back and forth about this idea that the president adopt putin's views on ukraine. >> isn't it also true that some of president trump's most senior advisers had informed him that this theory of ukraine interference in the 2016 election was false? >> that's correct.

>> so is it your understanding then that president trump disregarded the advice of his senior officials about this theory and instead listened to rudy giuliani's views? >> that appears to be the case, yes. >> by promoting this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, was president trump adopting vladimir putin's view over his own senior advisers and intelligence officials? >> i think we have to be very careful about the way that we phrase that. this is a view that president putin and the russian security surfa services and many actors in russia have promoted. but i think that this view has also got some traction, perhaps in parallel and separately here in the united states, and those two things have over time started to fuse together. >> you know, ben, this is what i think made fiona hill such a credible witness, is that she was willing to puncture narratives even if they came

from a side that she may have been sympathetic to. >> yeah, and she actually laid down a marker on this point in her opening statement. where i don't have the text of it in front of me, but she said basically, you know, these are conspiracy theories and i think she used the phrase fictitious narrative, and they're a fictitious narrative that are being promulgated by the russian security services themselves. and she really, you know, she really laid down that marker and thereby invited, i think, this line of questioning because it is striking that the president's rhetoric and the rhetoric now of some of the republican members of the committee before which she was testifying really do have a resonance with and sort of common thematic material with this fictitious narrative that the russians security services, and vladimir putin himself, have

put forward. >> and as much credit as fiona hill has been getting about pushing back, i thought david holmes handled himself, especially against jim jordan, which ain't easy, right, michael? this back and forth with jim jordan i think was one of those moments where jim jordan wished his time had been up. take a listen. >> i briefed the call in detail. we come back, i referred to the call, and everyone is nodding. of course, that's what's going on. of course the president is pressing for a biden investigation before he'll do these things the ukrainians want. there's nodding agreement. so did i go through every single word in the call? no, because everyone by that point agreed. it was obvious what the president was pressing for. and ambassador taylor, as you just outlined, had all those other interactions. >> he didn't share it with us. >> please do not interrupt. >> sir, that -- >> but sir, my vivid recollection of an event i was involved with was a touchstone

experience that to me validated -- sir. >> mr. jordan, please do not interrupt. >> what we believed. and ambassador taylor was not in that call. >> all of a sudden last week, you have to come tell us, right? >> jordan, you will allow t witness to answer the question. >> he was involved in a number of oefrt interactions as you have outlined that brought him to the same conclusion. it is quite possible that that -- >> he doesn't share -- >> mr. jordan. mr. jordan, you may not like the witness's answer, but we -- >> there wasn't an answer. it was a filibuster. >> first of all, jim jordan accusing someone else of doing a filibuster, but michael, this was perhaps, i mean, like i said, jim jordan looked like he had just been run over by a mack truck. >> he's been backing his way into a box canyon for weeks now and his back finally hit the wall. this is as far as he could go and the facts are too

overwhelming and too compelling and too obvious to mount the kind of dfz. there's a defense to be made, what he did this, it's wrong, it doesn't rise to the level of impeaching him the year before the election. that's not the defense the president wants. he wants the perfect defense, and the facts just ain't there. >> heidi, i think it was that moment when they stopped allowing holmes or hill to answer questions. at one point, fiona hill is like, hey, can i respond, after 15 minutes, five straight filibusters. >> they gave up and she said i want to point out representatives ratcliffe and turner have left the room. she was on fire at that point. a point at which almost every single defense that the gop had been throwing up there had been just extinguished. the argument, for example, that the president said no quid pro quo, well now we find out that was the same day that congress began investigating him. so now we have a great explanation as to why he said just don't call it a quid pro quo, that ukraine actually never did the investigation.

well, now we know from holmes that they had agreed to it, and it was so specific in fact that the president had said, i want that network. i want you to go on cnn and make the statement, and this is what it's got to say. it's got to say burisma. they were dictating everything part of this. that the ukrainians didn't know they were being bribed. actually, laura cooper told us last night that in july, the ukrainians started to inquire, that they knew immediately within hours of that phone call, that they were being shaken down. so all of these defenses by this point had been extinguished to the point that no more questions were being asked, and members, gop members were leaving the room. >> maria teresa, now we're at the political sort of conundrum that democrats are at. they both have it and at the same time, they know they're about to run into a political brick wall. >> this is i think one of the reasons why pelosi was holding back. she did not want to beep in this moment right now as we're heading into -- >> right, you have it. you caught the car, you even have the evidence. now what do you do? >> that's the challenge.

one of the things and a lot of the polling we're starting to see is folks that came in believing in the impeachment are still there. folks who didn't believe in the impeachment are still there. part of it has a lot to do with the fact we're consuming different sources of media. when you look at the way the republicans are asking the questions, they all look tough, like their prr browbeating. >> they're not asking questions. they're making clips for fox. >> exactly right, and that is going to be the challenge going in. how are we actually breaking into the cycle where people actually get the information they need? >> trump never got his roy kohn, but he has his saean hannity. >> ben, you're putin. are you happy? i mean, obviously, you have ukraine totally humiliated here by the united states. now on one hand, they have been humiliated. you know trump is never really with them and not going to be with them, but you also know everyone else in the american political class is going to be with ukraine forever. so it's interesting, but

strategically, what do you think putin is thinking? >> well, i'm not a russia scholar, but i will say look, if the goal of the russian operations is to sow discord in the united states and accentuate division, which is what a lot of people who study russian information operations and russian policy toward the united states emphasize, it is hard to imagine a more satisfying outcome than this, right? we have spent the last three years fighting with each other, and fighting with each other over divisions among other things about russia. and so i think, you know, to the extent that it has caused a lot of republicans to suspect ukraine is not our friend, that has eroded the kind of bipartisan coalition that has supported ukraine in its fight with russia.

and to the extent we're tearing each other's hair out rather than presenting a united front on the world stage, which is what we traditionally do, that's very good for kind of a power like russia. >> all right, ben, i'm going to let you go for now. thank you, sir. heidi, michael, maria teresa, you guys are going to stick around. i just wish more people would realize what the russians have done with so many western democracies, particularly with vulnerable political parties, some of whom, most of whom on the right, that they have hijacked and done this. it's not just us, guys. >> up next, remember that democratic presidential primary campaign that was happening? we'll talk about it.

i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack. not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection

increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. with time, comes change that's for sure... and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash,

tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love. it's a viable effective way to support your other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now! tonight in 2020 vision, with the impeachment inquiry taking up a lot of political oxygen, it's no surprise it was the opening

question in last night's democratic debate, but elizabeth warren and bernie sanders quickly changed the subject. overall, the candidates spent more time attacking the president than they did attacking each other and touting their own ability to beat trump. >> but we cannot simply be consumed by donald trump. because if we are, you know what, we're going to lose the election. >> the constitutional process of impeachment should be beyond politics. and it is not a part of the campaign. but the president's conduct is. >> you have to ask yourself up here, who is most likely to be able to win the nomination in the first place, to win the presidency in the first place, and secondly, who is most likely to increase the number of people who are democrats in the house and in the senate. >> i govern both with my head and my heart, and if you think a woman can't beat donald trump, nancy pelosi does it every single day. >> pete buttigieg came into the night supposedly with a target on his back. i don't know.

he's climbing in the polls nationally, and he's leading the field in iowa. buttigieg avoided direct criticism from other candidates for most of the night. towards the end, he did come under fire since they all realized none of their bank shots had hit. first, from kamala harris on race and his outreach to african-american voters. >> the larger issue is that for too long, i think, candidates have taken for granted constituencies that have been the backbone of the democratic party. and have overlooked those constituencies. and have, you know, they show up when it's close to election time, show up in a black church, and want to get the vote. but just having been there -- >> my response is i completely agree. and i welcome the challenge of connecting with black voters in america who don't yet know me. >> that fight between harris and buttigieg took another turn today. we'll get to that in just a moment.

buttigieg also took fire from amy klobuchar, tulsi gabbard, who went after him on his experience and decision making. he emerged mostly unscathed, but joe biden may have suffered some damage, some of which was of his own making. >> if you notice, i have more people supporting me in the black community because they know me. they know who i am. three former chairs of the black caucus, the only african-american woman that had ever been elected to the united states senate. >> that was, of course, not biden's first debate gaffe deba election cycle and it wasn't his only cringe-worthy moment that night. we'll have the one sound bite that encapsulates the whole debate. that's next. that's next.

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. 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. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this.

which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

welcome back for more on the debate last night. heidi prisbilla, michael steele and -- are all back. kamala harris criticized buttigieg for using stock footage of someone from kenya on

his website. she had taken a shot of him over that. the moderators set up an tur opportunity for her to hit him. she did not. here was pete's response last night. >> while i do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, i do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country. turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me, working side by side, shoulder to shoulder. >> so there was that. some folks have criticized pete for maybe comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. he was trying to create caveats in here. here's how kamala harris responded last night. >> the issue really is not what

is the fight. the issue has to be how are we going to win? and to win we have to build a coalition and rebuild the obama coalition. what that coalition looked like is it was about having a leader who worked in many communities, knows those communities and has the ability to bring people together. and everyone is going to have to be judged on their experience, and therefore, ability to bring folks together around our commonalities. >> that was her response last night. today she went right at the comparison and criticized buttigieg. take a listen. >> those of us who have been involved in civil rights for a long time, we know that it is important that we not compare struggles. it's just -- it is not productive, it is not smart. >> maria teresa, here is the point here. it was clear last night she

decided not to reiterate the hit. what surprised me was she then wanted to go back and make the comparison. it seems as if she is regretting her decision last night. >> and i think part of it is a lot of folks came to task saying, how can you compare their civil rights with gay rights, and i think it's something that is a lot of tension within the progressive movement. >> there's been tension for years over this. >> for years, yes. for her i think she was trying to sit back and figure out. i bet she got back home and people said, you have to stand up and talk about the african-american experience because you always need to make sure you are also solidifying the african-american vote. it is difficult to walk that. i do that every single day and these are tightropes you're constantly walking through. >> it's clear the candidates last night knew they had to get pete and they didn't know how to

do it. i highlighted kamala. >> he made a gaffe of sending troops into mexico, he just took that and crushed her. he said, at least i don't meet with murderous dictators, referring to her meeting with assad. it's a warning to anybody who wants to try to play a game of wits with buttigieg. there is also the fact he's kind of the shiny, new, young, likable guy and maybe they don't see a political advantage in attacking him at this point. >> the bigger picture is the democrats are trying to select someone to go up against donald trump. going against donald trump is a blood sport. sending someone unprepared to go against him is like sending a bunny rabbit against a t-rex. >> although rabbits are nimble and they can go in a hole.

the t-rex can't fit in a hole. >> i think what is interesting, though, is that even when pete buttigieg did a lot of his comebacks, he also rose to the occasion but he didn't directly attack them, either. >> he didn't. >> he stayed above the fray, and that's remarkable. >> that's where he reminds me of obama, on that score, and the candidates' reactions of him reminded me of how in '07 and '08 republicans attacked him. >> it doesn't work against donald trump. >> look, the argument -- >> we don't know what works against donald trump. >> you don't know if a guy like pete is actually the polar opposite of trump and might end up being cryptonite. we don't know what his cryptonite is. for what it's worth, jimmy

carter has been emailing me and said, there is only one guy who looks like he can pull it off, and that's buttigieg. that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow night with more "meet the press daily." ari is next. the house has just wrapped up what has been a week of blockbuster impeachment hearings. we have everything covered for you tonight. also a special report from the fallout on gordon sondland and other key witnesses flipping on donald trump. i've been working on that for several days with the team here. i want to get into that soon. but we begin with the newest and the boldest. intelligence chairman adam schiff sounding downright angry and emotional in these closing arguments, effectively pleading with patriotic republicans to evaluate what he says is