live edition of "politics nation." up next, my colleague richard lui picks up the coverage with more of today's news. good saturday to you. i'm richard lui live here at msnbc world headquarters. new information overnight raises new questions about secretary of state mike pompeo and rudy giuliani and the contacts they may have had. this as a giuliani associate may be ready to drag a republican member of congress front and center into the scandal. that's new. and the case against donald trump from the witnesses in their own words. this hour, we're going to show you how they laid it all out this week. plus, what some say is distract, deflect, and defend the president at any cost. the three ds in the republicans during week nine of the

impeachment inquiry. right now, house intelligence committee appear to be ready to end public impeachment hearings and head to writing a report. but then there's this. two new developments that raise a crucial question we're posing this hour. why the rush? the government watchdog group called american oversight has published nearly 100 pages of previously-unreleased state department documents they say is -- it shows a paper trail, potentially, here between rudy giuliani and mike pompeo just before marie yovanovitch was recalled from her post. both giuliani and pompeo have not complied with congressional subpoenas to hand over documents. in a rare release, the state department complied with its outside request. but still, has not cooperated with congress. gordon sondland in his testimony wednesday made the case for why this is so important. >> this process has been challenging. and in many respects, less than fair.

i have not had access to all of my phone records, state department e-mails, and many, many other state department documents. and i was told i could not work with my eu staff to pull together the relevant files and information. in the absence of these materials, my memory, admittedly, has not been perfect. and i have no doubt that a more fair, open, and orderly process of allowing me to read the state department records and other materials would have made this process far more transparent. >> the other development today is also tied to rudy giuliani. he -- his indicted associate, lev parnas, says he is willing to testify that congressman devin nunes did meet with an ex-ukrainian official about investigating the bidens. giuliani is just one of the many key figures not expected to testify publicly despite their names being central to the testimony so far.

>> mr. giuliani to secretary pompeo, secretary perry, brian mccormick, chief of staff mulvaney, and mr. mulvaney's senior advisor rob blair. everyone was in the loop. >> ambassadors volker and sondland and secretary rick perry also attended the meeting. i attended with dr. hill. we had not completed all the agenda items and we still had time for the meeting and ambassador bolton abruptly ended the meeting. >> you tell eisenberg, ambassador bolton told me, that i am not part of the -- this whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. i knew then in the course of that discussion said that rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. >> my recollection is that ambassador sondland stated quote, damn it, rudy, every time rudy gets involved, he goes and fs everything up. my recollection is that ambassador sondland stated quote, damn it, rudy, every time rudy gets involved, he goes and

fs everything up. >> one of those key figures being discussed, john bolton. and he did -- he has gone public in a way. kind of. he made clear of being back on twitter this week via a twitter post. he claims the white house had kept him off the platform. let's bring in our panel to discuss. joyce vance, former u.s. attorney. natasha, political national security correspondent. andy carny, new york times white house correspondent. and david jolly, former republican congressman from florida. all are msnbc contributors. joyce, we played some of the best hits if you will that happened this past week. what do you think assisted the democrats in their case they need to make as they go forward to put together their report going to the senate? >> well, the democrats at this juncture are doing something that's roughly the equivalent of -- of indicting a criminal case. that's not maybe a precise comparison. but it's good enough for this

purposes. they're deciding whether or not there's sufficient evidence to charge the defendant -- or to charge the president -- with articles of impeachment. so this is sort of a lower standard inquiry than when we get to a trial. and given the overall evidence, you know, we don't look at one witness in isolation. we look at all of the evidence in combination. it seems very clear that, combine these witnesses that have come forward and now documents that are beginning to trickle in make is very clear that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> natasha, as these documents come in and, you know, reporting on these 100 pages coming from the state department. again, not a result of what the congress -- what congress has asked for. a result, instead of, a freedom of information act. something you have been involved in many times before. does this then say that democrats should think about extending the process that the intel committee, at the moment, has not officially closed? >> yeah.

well, that really remains to be seen. but there's no sign of it as of now. i mean, adam schiff and the committee are already writing the report that will be sent over to the judiciary committee. and with this new information, i think that there are kind of ideas floating around about whether they want to hold more public hearings. particularly, with regard not even to the ukraine scandal but potentially with regard to mueller's findings, including obstruction of justice. we're going to learn potentially on monday whether don mcgahn, the former white house lawyer, has to testify to the hill. so there's sitill some shoes to drop here and i think democrats are weighing whether or not they want to do at least another public hearing related to mueller's findings of obstruction of justice because they are considering adding an impeachment article with regard to obstruction by the president. >> annie, from the white house's perspective here, it has been release no documents. state department, release no documents. with these documents now being released, not a result again of

the committee and their request so far. might we see the potential release of some of the documents moving forward that the white house and state department so far has not allowed to be released? >> no, i don't think there's any chance of a change of strategy from the white house in terms of the stonewalling, not letting mulvaney and other white house officials testify and releasing documents. they think this is working for them. and it kind of is. they see coming out of two weeks of public impeachment hearings, we didn't see a single republican in the house on -- on these committees break with the president. in fact, we saw the support from republicans potentially getting stronger. republicans like will hurd from texas who is retiring said he sees nothing impeachable here. elise stefanik, a moderate from new york came out as one of trump's biggest defenders and a new rising star in the trump-led gop. so if anything, confronted with

a dozen witnesses who gave facts showing that there was a quid pro quo, we saw republicans dig in even further. so for -- for trump, the strategy of stonewalling and saying i did nothing wrong seems to be working. there's no sign that they're changing that. >> so we saw a parade, if you will, here, david jolly, of some 12 fact witnesses. we have seen over 35 hours -- some 35 hours i should say of testimony almost. and the question that i started with at the top of the show is if the democrats are still potentially seeing more documents come out and these 100 pages that we have here now and -- and more as natasha was saying about coming monday. why the rush, then, those who are kritle of tcritical of the why not wait longer? >> well, there is an argument that you could get even more information and particularly if the white house would cooperate in allowing mulvaney and bolton and even pompeo perhaps to

testify. but recall, richard, as joyce said, through a totality of the evidence, a firm case of impeachable behavior. this entire fact pattern started with the president's admission around september 22 or 23. he said why would i give money to a corrupt nation? and when pressed on it, he said, of course, i wanted to make sure that our people, mainly the bidens, weren't contributing to corruption in the ukraine. so we have the confession followed by the corroborating testimony. the house has what it needs. the question is, you know, schiff has said if they don't get the testimony, they'll consider it further evidence of obstruction. i do think if you're going to move forward and -- and you want to draw a finer point on the fact you didn't get cooperation from the white house, they need to move more clearly into that space. maybe even pass a sense of the house that they are going to move impeachment articles on december 15th. they want testimony from bolton, pompeo, and mulvaney. they want a full transcript or

readout of the phone call. but if they don't get it, they are moving forward on december 15th one way or the other. but they need to lean in on the obstructive behavior of the non-cooperating witnesses if they really want to be able to hang that on the white house. >> yeah. and i guess, joyce vance, we started by saying what about bolton? you know, he's now come out with that tweet or two saying i've finally been allowed to express myself. to use my twitter account. is he hinting or not? is he intimating or not? a, i've got a lot to say and i might just do it. >> you know, it's hard to tell at this point whether bolton is trying to sell books or whether he is sincere about coming forward. but we haven't seen a lot of guarantees from bolton. and i think people need to be cautious about anticipating that his testimony would be helpful to the democrats in this exercise. one thing that's for certain is that if any of these witnesses, these sort of first-tier,

firsthand witnesses could have been helpful to the president, that we would have heard their testimony long ago. so we can rule out the fact that they help trump. but whether they help the democrats is, i think, a very fine point. and it's possible that bolton, if he testified, would both talk about conduct that he saw, that he found in some sense to be inappropriate. but would also stop short of saying that it was criminal or impeachable. >> and as we think of that very possibility of bolton potentially fiona hill has already done the job that he might do. although, again, not a firsthand witness. natasha bertrand, what do we make of this reporting coming out regarding lev parnas? again, a rudy giuliani affiliate here who may -- who may -- we don't know, right, may be saying i can testify that devin nunes -- again, the ranking member on the house intel committee, the republican. that he may have met with ex-ukrainian officials.

what do we know about that? >> yeah. so i think we have to be a little bit careful because lev parnas is kind of, like, a michael cohen figure. very bombastic. not necessarily the most credible person in the world. and of course, is trying to be as helpful to the democrats on the committee or dangling that help as possible because he is undergoing criminal investigation out of new york. so i think that, you know, his lawyer's probably desperate for him to have any kind of impact that he could and get kind of good will from the democrats on the committee to somehow help his case. but devin nunes was in europe last year around the same time, of course, that lev parnas has said that he was meeting with the former prosecutor of -- in ukraine to get dirt on joe biden. and if that's the case, then actually the democratic representative adam smith said this morning on msnbc it's quite likely there will be an ethics investigation into this because devin nunes of course has been making a big fuss over the idea

that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. and if it's true he was meeting with victor shokin, the former prosecutor to dig up biden last year, that would just be him kind of trying to get ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. so there's been a lot of projection at play here by the -- by the congressman if it was accurate that he was meeting with parnas and shokin in order to further this, you know, help of the president. but there is going to be an ethics investigation if more evidence comes out that this indeed occurred. >> joyce, natasha, annie, and david. stay with us. we're going to return right after a short break. coming up, the case against donald trump in the words of those who appeared before the impeachment inquiry went through the tapes. picked out some of the highlights for you in case you're just sitting down on this saturday and wanting to know what happened. we'll look at whether democrats have met their burden of proof. f we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

welcome back to the special coverage of the impeachment inquiry on saturday. two weeks now, 12 witnesses, 35 hours of testimony from mostly career public servants with decades of non-partisan government service. it all added up to a compelling narrative of a president who wanted ukraine to investigate his political rivals and the people in his orbit who were willing to do his bidding. here's the case those witnesses made in their own words this week. >> in mid august, it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts to gin up politically-motivated investigations were now

infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine. leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. >> following the call with president trump, the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which giuliani was pressing for. >> and now, the president in real time is attacking you. it's 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. >> i found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls i had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic/political matter. >> it was also clear that if ukraine proceeded an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens, and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. >> others saw the idea of investigating the ukrainian company burisma as equivalent to investigating former vice

president biden. >> what did ambassador sondland say -- tell you that he told mr. yermak? >> that the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. >> mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election dnc server and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states. and we knew these investigations were important to the president. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop.

>> your staff at least gleaned from those conversations that ukrainian embassy was aware that there was some kind of a hold on the assistance? >> sir, the way i would phrase it is that there was some kind of an issue, yes. >> ambassador hale, therefore, are you saying marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot? >> i endorse what you say exactly. >> she served with grace and dignity in the face of the smear campaign? >> yes, she did. >> it struck me when yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's e-mails and who was on these e-mails and said these are the people that 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 policy. and those two things had just diverged. and i did say to him, ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up. and here we are. >> it became apparent that mr. giuliani was having a direct influence on the foreign policy

agenda that the three amigos were executing on the ground in ukraine. my recollection is that ambassador sondland stated quote, damn it, rudy, every time rudy gets involved, he goes and f's everything up. >> joining us now, editor at large and msnbc contributor charlie psychs. back with us, joyce vance. politico national security correspondent natasha and former congressman from florida, david jolly. charlie, since you're joining us, what do you make of that mash-up? that is 35 hours shrunk into three minutes and you got a sense of the energy of those who were sitting in that very room. and what may be the highlight of what their testimony was. >> yeah. i mean, it was succinct. it was compelling and it was highly credible. so, look, there's no mystery here what happened. there's no mystery about the quid pro quo anymore. we know that the president tried

to extort the ukrainians to launch an investigation into joe biden. we know that the president continues to be a willing dupe of russian military intelligence conspiracy theories. we know that the president, in fact, tried to affect the 2020 election. the question now is whether or not the republicans care. whether they take this seriously or not. so, yes, i do think that the democrats very, very effectively laid out the case. made the case. they do have sufficient evidence. but i think the questions that you've been raising are legitimate. what is the rush? this is the most solemn responsibility of congress. this is one of the highest constitutional responsibilities that they have. and the question is, you know, are they going to pursue all of the other leads that came out? are they going to get more records, more e-mails? they've gotten nothing so far. are they going to pursue what we've learned about mick

mulvaney? about secretary pompeo? about rudy giuliani's activities. about devin nunes's activities. so i do think that there's -- there's a reason for democrats to possibly slow their roll a little bit here. yes, they have enough. but i think that the case needs to continue to be pursued. i think there's more evidence. there's more witnesses. and, frankly, public opinion needs to marinate in some of the things that we've learned over the last ten days. >> joyce, what's the risk here? listen to what charlie said. marinating versus moving. >> you know, the real central question here is whose domestic political errand was gordon sondland running? was it rudy giuliani's? was it secretary pompeo's? or can it be attributed to donald trump? so ultimately, when we get into the senate part of these proceedings, the most important question will be not did the conduct occur, as charlie says it's very clear it occurred. but did it occur at the

president's direction? that's what makes this timing issue so difficult. and it seems that over the last week or two, we've been getting new evidence. not just cumulative evidence that reinforces things that we already know. as long as the democrats are still getting new evidence, they might want to stay in a crouch a little bit longer to let that evidence come in. but at some point, the evidence becomes merely cumulative and it's time to move on. >> david, same question to you. marinate or move? >> you know, listen. it's a strategic question from democrats. they have shown us a bit of a -- their hand already by withdrawing their subpoena of charles kupperman. this was the national security advisor that went to court to say should i listen to the white house or the congress? congress said, you know what, we'll withdrawal the subpoena. actually, filed a motion to dismiss so as to not prolon gate it. there is ample evidence to move forward without question. i think they need to lean in on some of the obstruction narrative. what republicans have right now

is a choice between either arguing the case wasn't proven, which really doesn't stand up to the facts. particularly, when witnesses, key witnesses, have been withheld by the white house. or it's not impeachable. it appears the house wants to settle on not proven. but i would urge republicans to reconsider this. if -- if you're arguing not proven, then you're suggesting you don't care about the facts or the truth. that the only person who tells the truth is donald trump. a man who tried to redirect a hurricane with a sharpie is the only truth teller. none of these other witnesses we've heard from are. if you're arguing not impeachable, at least you're acknowledging the wrongdoing and now you're in a space of the national conversation. should we try to impeach a president over this? or let the voters decide next november? it's a more respectable place to be even though i think it's the wrong place to be. >> natasha, i guess the risk might be, on one side, you haven't convinced what some are saying would be the representative hurd from texas.

he certainly wasn't convinced in this particular set of hearings. the seven public hearings that we had. he wasn't convinced. so if you move forward, it doesn't seem like you're going to gain any moderate republicans. but do you risk losing some of those trump district democrats who are watching very carefully how this is happening? and they do have to face an electorate come this november. >> i think you do and i think what democrats were trying to do with this impeachment inquiry was not necessarily even to move votes, right? i mean, by the end of this, it became clear to them that they could not in good conscience carry out their duties as members of congress without in some way holding this president accountable for his actions with regard not only to the mueller investigation in russia. but now, just one day after mueller testified to all of this, calling the ukrainian president and essentially trying to get a foreign country to interfere yet again in 2020.

so i think that the democrats really just saw that they had no choice. and what adam schiff said during his closing statement got to that. he said that this really was about a matter of timing. that the day after mueller exposed all of this, testified about it to the american people, trump was at it again. so whether or not this moves votes, whether or not senate republicans go along with it which of course they won't, i think democrats, they feel now they can move ahead in good conscience knowing they will have impeached the president and held him accountable in that way. >> burden of proof met or not? yes or no? joyce? >> you know, the first question is what is the burden of proof? we don't know for sure what it is in the senate. guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies in criminal cases but i would say even that higher burden can be met at this point. we've seen a lot of evidence. >> david, yes or no? >> yes, and, richard, it was not the democrats' responsibility to convince the american people.

it was their job to show us the facts. the facts meet the burden of proof. this is on us now. the american people to demand accountability. >> charlie, yes or no? >> yes, and, you know, when he extorted the ukrainians, he was not betraying ukraine. he was betraying america and he was betraying his oath of office to make sure that the laws are -- are -- are enforced and that -- that our national security is protected. and i think that point needs to be emphasized more by the democrats. >> and finally, natasha, you, yes or no? >> yes, we have gordon sondland saying everyone was in the loop and we have the president -- we have the record of the phone call of him with president zelensky asking for this. >> all right. great panel. david jolly, joyce vance, natasha, thank you so much. charlie sykes, you stick around a little lodger for us. up next for you, we're going to give into how russian aggression was helped by republicans' conspiracy theories. was putin actually the big winner in all of this? (burke) at farmers insurance,

we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. even a- (ernie) lost rubber duckie? (burke) you mean this one? (ernie) rubber duckie! (cookie) what about a broken cookie jar? (burke) again, cookie? (cookie) yeah. me bad. (grover) yoooooow! oh! what about monsters having accidents? i am okay by the way! (burke) depends. did you cause the accident, grover? (grover) cause an accident? maybe... (bert) how do you know all this stuff? (burke) just comes with experience. (all muppets) yup. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum

(honk!) i hear you sister. that's why i'm partnering with cigna to remind you to go in for your annual check-up, and be open with your doctor about anything you feel - physically and emotionally. but now cigna has a plan that can help everyone see stress differently. just find a period of time to unwind. a location to de-stress. an activity to enjoy. or the name of someone to talk to. to create a plan that works for you,

visit cigna.com/mystressplan. cigna. together, all the way. visit cigna.com/mystressplan. new crest gum and sensitivity. ahh brain freeze! no, it's my teeth. your teeth hurt? just sensitivity. i should see my dentist. my teeth have been feeling really sensitive lately. well 80% of sensitivity starts at the gum line, so treat sensitivity at the source. new crest gum and sensitivity starts treating sensitivity immediately, at the gum line, for relief within days and wraps your teeth in sensitivity protection. ohh your teeth? no, it's brain freeze! new gum and sensitivity from crest.

and welcome back to our special look at the impeachment inquiry through the words of the witnesses who testified during two weeks of public hearings. regardless of how the impeachment fight turns out, we may already have one clear winner. russian president vladimir putin. during the bombshell public testimony, ambassadors, state

department officials, and intelligence officers all testified that the withholding of aid to ukraine, a country that depends on help from the united states to help fight against russia, sends an ominous message not only to ukraine but to other foreign allies. as it begs the question, who is president's tru president trump's actions really aimed at helping? >> our holding up of security assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason is wrong. >> i think the signal that there's controversy and question about the u.s. support of ukraine sends the signal to vladimir putin that he can leverage that as he seeks to negotiate with not only ukraine but other countries. >> our ukraine policy has been thrown into disarray. and shady interests, the word --

the world over -- have learned how little it takes to remove an american ambassador who does not give them what they want. 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? >> i refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the ukrainian government is a u.s. adversary and that ukraine, not russia, attacked us in 2016. these fictions are harmful even if they're deployed for purely domestic political purposes. president putin and the russian security services operate like a super pac. they deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. when we are consumed by parties,

we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the american people in our democracy. >> isn't it also true that some of president trump's most senior advisors 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's appears to be the case, yes. >> joining me now, former ambassador nancy soderberg and former deputy assistant secretary of state joel reuben. ambassador, as you look at the diplomatic core and the national security core that came forward in the last two weeks, how did they do? >> well, they were the pinnacle of what american public service stands for. upholding the constitution, telling the truth, not being

intimidated. and i think all americans should be grateful for the fact that they are getting up every day and defending american interest. and that came clear after a parade of one over another just came up and said i was advocating for american national security. i think my favorite line is fiona hill said i was advocating for our national security and sondland was on a domestic political errand. and that says it all right there. >> who articulated it the best do you think, joel, when it came to not only that point but as well as the conversations and the data that -- and the facts -- that were necessary for this deliberative body to consider? who do you think hit it best in terms of those who came forward from the diplomatic corp. and the national security corps? >> i think all of them did it very well and did an amazing job. alexander vindman, jennifer williams. you name it. the people who are doing the real work. and i have to say i think it --

it's understandable right now why americans may be a bit disoriented about what they just saw. the overwhelming evidence of these past two weeks about the administration's maneuvers on ukraine, their scandalous behavior, it shocks the senses. and unfortunately, what we've seen is the republicans behaving not as fiona hill said like a super-pac but behaving like a crime syndicate to be very direct about it. defending vladimir putin and defending donald trump against these civil servants who took an oath to protect us and who are up there as fact witnesses. they were attacked. they served in the trump administration. didn't matter as ambassador sondland, he was attacked. the civil servants, they were attacked. these individuals essentially have gas lit america so the patriotism of these civil servants needs to shine through but the tactics by the republicans needs to be very clear. >> fiona hill came out pretty

strong about that word tactic that was coming from many of the republican party. she was so clear in saying as i think you were noting a little bit earlier that do not forward this idea that the server and ukraine together is part of what actually is or was happening. that this, instead, is a russian move and strategy and a push. you are forwarding an idea coming from a diplomatic enemy, if you will, or adversary at the moment. don't do that. was that well-received? because the president, as well as the minority leader from the house, came out saying the very same thing the next day. >> well, they're already starting to investigate these types of things in the senate. and i think there are two main lessons that came out of these hearings this week. one is a question that will go to the senate. is it okay for the president of the united states to have held up aid and an important white house meeting to ukraine for his personal, political gain? that's what happened. they can spin it however they

want but that's the question and they'll argue nothing really happened. so it's fine. or, yes, that was an impeachable offense. the second was ambassador -- was fiona hill's very clear message that do not aid putin in his fictional narrative that he's been putting forward for two years and apparently the senators have been briefed on the intelligence committee's assessment that putin is the one putting forward this ukrainian server, this ukrainian narrative. and she pleaded with them not to fall into that narrative. so this now moves from the house to the senate on those two points. was it okay to hold up aid? and secondly, are we gonna fall into the putin trap of putting forward this false narrative and it's going to be a good show. we're all going to watch it. >> you know, it's been said by one of our msnbc contributors here, joel, and where was the secretary of state to defend all these great men and women? the word and i put in quotes, coward, in terms of what was said about the secretary of state. is that too strong?

>> it 's not too strong for somebody over the obama administration with benghazi. for him now to be hiding behind civil servants at the state department is cowardly and it's an obstruction of congress. people like mike pompeo, mick mulvaney, rudy giuliani. they're not just fact witnesses. they're actual participants in this crime. and we need to be very clear that donald trump, he bought the vladimir putin propaganda hook, line, and sinker. he has been pushing that into the narrative. and so the republicans, they're getting their direction from donald trump right now on this. and that's exactly what needs to be discussed in the senate. >> former ambassador nancy soderberg and former deputy assistant secretary of state joel reuben. thank you both. coming up, the republican defense of president trump. starting to unravel in the face of some compelling testimony from witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. that's one side of the story. the other, after this.

to meet shawn mendes. verizon got me into the nfl combine, they don't even sell tickets to this thing. (announcer) verizon knows you love live music and sports. we got to be this far away from the stage. (announcer) that's why we give you access to more jaw-dropping experiences, including nfl games and events. i've never had a vip experience before like that. probably the best moment of my life. (announcer) switch now and you'll get access to thousands of tickets on us. plus, one of our best phones when you buy another, because the network more people rely on, gives you more. when i switched to geico. and this is how it made me feel. it was like that feeling when you go to taco night at your favorite restaurant. and they're the best-tasting tacos in the entire world. and just when you think it couldn't get any better, they bring you out another taco... ...cuz they made an extra one. ♪ extra taco! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

fifteen minutes could save you do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action.

and welcome back. republicans on the house intelligence committee rallied around the president during the past two weeks of explosive testimony in the impeachment inquiry. they advanced defenses of president trump. they denied the existence of a quid pro quo. asserted witnesses had no firsthand knowledge of the president's intentions and insisted there was nothing wrong with the infamous phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine.

this is what happened. >> you know what a quid pro quo is? >> i do. >> this for that? right? looks to me like ukraine got that three times and there was no this. >> was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. >> they saw us sit through hours of hearsay testimony about conversations that two diplomats, who had never spoken to the president, heard second hand, third hand, and fourth hand from other people. in other words, rumors. >> so and so said such and such to so and so. >> so you heard president trump ask ambassador sondland, is he going to do the investigation? >> yes, sir. >> what was ambassador sondland's response? >> he -- he said, oh, yeah, he's gonna do it. he'll do anything you ask.

>> and was that the end of the ukraine portion of the conversation? >> yes. >> the democrats have struggled to make the case that president trump committed some impeachable offense. on his phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. the offense itself changes depending on the day. ranging from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. >> i was concerned by the call. what i heard was inappropriate. >> i found the july 25th phone call unusual. >> yet more highlights from the week that was. coming up for you, we're going to look at how the republican defense of trump may play out if and when impeachment goes to the senate. and what a difference a few years and president trump have made in lindsey graham's feelings for the former vice president. hi. maria ramirez!

mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs

that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth.

fidelity wealth management. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us you can do it without fingersticks. montez sweat. is he right for old spice? montez's name is sweat. he's also a powerful defenseman in the nfl. old spice is a powerful sweat defense in the nfl. is he right for old spice? yeah.

the holidays are easier... when you can do this.. post this... and be there like this. so we give you that. and right now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10... and get one free. . if you can't admire joe biden as a person, you got a problem. you need to do some self-evaluation because what's not to like? here's what i can tell you, that life can change just like that. don't take it for granted.

don't take relationships for granted. >> senator lindsey graham with an emotional defense of joe biden in 2016. you take it to today, senator graham is launching an investigation into the bidens and their business dealings with ukraine, part of the his full-throated defense of president trump's completely so far unsubstantiated claims of former wrongdoing by the former vice president and his son. now the former vice president now responding. >> he knows me. he knows my son. he knows there's nothing to this. trump is now essentially holding power over him that even the ukrainians wouldn't yield to. ukrainians would not yield to, quote, investigate biden. there's nothing to investigate about biden or his son. and lindsey is about to go down in a way that i think he's going to regret his whole life. >> we're joined by joel pane,

former director of paid media for hill for america. back with us, charlie psychs, editor at large, and annie karni back with us as well. joel, as we look at what republicans and we'll focus on the senate for now since that's in front of us, it does appear when we do get to a trial, which is most probable after a vote coming from the house for impeachment, where are republican senators going right now? in one example that have, for instance, senators johnson and grassley calling for state department documents to be released related to hunter biden and burisma, this posted recently on his website, for instance, joel. >> what i see here are republicans trying to go on parallel tracks and put up weather balloons and start to test out the atmospherics here. if you're mitch mcconnell, you're making sounds and making suggestions that you're going to take this trial seriously

because the people in your state just told you they take it seriously because donald trump just cost you the governor's seat in your home state of kentucky. if you're lindsey graham, you want to start attacking the investigators, investigate the investigators. that's why graham is making noise about going after biden and going after the people, you know, in the exposed deep state that the president has been going for. and i think a lot of republicans in the senate probably don't know where they want to land. i think they know they probably are unlikely to support removal of this president, but i think they are unsure about how they're going to do that. they know where they need to get to. they're not sure about the route they're going to take to get there. >> charlie, let's add lindsey graham's requests from the state department, documents on the bidens and ukraine. >> you know, there's a lot of competition for this, but lindsey graham is arguably the most shameless politician in america, what he has become, what he is willing to do. i can't tell if he's

fundamentally sold himself out or he was always this way. i do think there's a risk for republicans in the senate. you vote to acquit, you move on. everybody forgets about it. but the question is, are they going to be moving from defenders and enablers to actual coconspirators? are they going to continue to aid and abet these bizarre conspiracy theories and actually serve to advance the propaganda message of vladimir putin? do you really want to become part of this? do you want to become so associated with donald trump's conduct that you are willing to become, i guess, part of the whole effort? >> annie, from the white house the president by that measure from what we've seen so far is doing well in terms of influencing the senators from the republican party save mitt

romney. >> yes, he's been having weekly lunches with the senators and discussing with them. he had them over to the white house this week to discuss what a senate trial would look like and there is disagreement between trump and the republicans in the senate about whether a short trial is beneficial or whether a long, drawnout process where he would expect the republicans to forcefully defend him, that he did nothing wrong and see in a as an opportunity to press his case would be more beneficial. trump has waffled back and forth but wants a real trial. he said on "fox and friends" that he wants a long trial. mitt romney has been at the white house twice this week, which was unusual for him, but mostly we see that the white house thinks this is going to end up with an quickly. >> quickly -- >> richard. >> quickly. >> quickly. we stood up this idea that

lindsey graham is this independent mind, that was probably the mistake. it's like which lindsey is lying, the one now or the one that was buddy buddy with john mccain back in the day. his goal is relevance. if that relevance means selling his soul and getting behind donald trump a guy that he said the republican party would go down with, that's what he'll do. >> democratic strategist joel pane, "new york times" white house correspondent annie karni. enjoy this saturday for me. that wraps ut up for me. you can follow me on instagram, twitter and facebook. our impeachment coverage continues next. have a great night. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said...

i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪'cause no matter how far away for you roam.♪ys.♪ ♪when you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze.♪ ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ the united states postal service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99.

for your worst sore throat pain try vicks vapocool drops. it's not candy, it's powerful relief. ahhhhhh! vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

a good saturday to you. i'm richard lui live at msnbc world headquarters. new information overnight raises new questions about secretary of state mike pompeo and rudy giuliani and the contacts they may have had. this as a giuliani associate may be ready to drag a republican member of congress front and center into the scandal. that's new. and the case against donald trump from the witnesses in their own words. this hour we're going to show you how they laid it all out this