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 week. plus, what some say is distract, deflect, and defend the president at any cost. the three "d"s during week nine of the impeachment inquiry. right now the house intelligence committee appear to be ready to end public impeachment hearings and read, ohio, into writing the report. there's this. two new developments that raise a crucial question we're posing this hour. why the rush? american oversight published nearly 100 pages of previously unreleased state department documents they say 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 emails, 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 admitly 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 materials would have made this process far more transparent. >> the other development today is also tied to rudy giuliani. his indicted associate, lev parnas, says he's willing to testify that 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 adviser, rob blair. everyone was in the loop. >> ambassadors volker and sondland and secretary rick perry also attended a meeting i attended with dr. hill. we have not completed the agenda items and we still had time for the meeting and ambassador bolton abruptly ended the meeting. >> he said i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. he then 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 single time rudy gets involved he goes and effs everything up. he said, quote, damn it, every time rudy gets involved, he effs everything up. >> one of those key figures being discussed, john bolton, and he has gone public in a way, kind of. he made clear 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. joyce vance, natasha bertrand, andrew carny 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 that 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 indicting a criminal case. that's not maybe a precise comparison, but it's good enough for this purpose. they're deciding whether or not there's sufficient evidence to chang charge the president with articles of impeachment. this is sort of a lower standard inquiry than when we get to a trial. given the overall evidence, we don't look at one witness in isolation. the witnesses who have come forward and now documents that are beginning to trickle in make it very clear that there's sufficient evidence to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> natasha, as these documents come in and reporting on these 100 pages coming from the state department, again, not a result of what the congress -- what congress asked for, a result instead of a freedom of information act, something you've been involved in many

times before. does this then say 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. adam schiff and the committee are already writing their report that will be sent over to the judiciary committee. 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 has to testify to the hill. so there's still shoes to drop here and i think democrats are weighing whether or not they want to do at least another hearing, 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 strange of strategy in terms of the stonewalling, not letting mulvaney and other white house officials testify and releasing documents. they think this is working for them. it kind of is. they see coming out of two weeks of public impeachment hearings, he didn't s we didn't see a single republican in the house on these committees break with the president. in fact, we saw the support from republicans potentially getting stronger. republicans like will herd from texas who's retiring said he

says nothing impeachable here. elise stefanik a moderate from new york, came out as one of trump's defenders and a rising star in the gop. confronted with a dozen witnesses who gave facts showing there was a quid pro quo. we saw republicans dig in even further. so for trump the strategy is stonewalling and saying i did nothing wrong seems to be working. there's no sign that they're changing that. >> we saw a parade, if you will, here, david jolly, of some 12 fact witnesses. we have seen over 35 hours of testimony almost. 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 and more as natasha was saying about coming monday, why the rush, then, those who are critical of

the democrats, why not wait longer? >> there's an argument that you could get even more information, particularly if the white house would cooperate and allmulvaneyd bolton to testify. recall, richard, as joyce said, they have 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. when pressed on it he said, of course i wanted to make sure that our people, mainly the bidens, weren't contribute to go 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 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. 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 noncooperating 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? he's come out with that tweet or two saying i've been allowed to express myself, to use my twitter account. is he hinting i have 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 it's going to people need to be

cautious about anticipating that his system 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 witnesses could have been helpful to the president, that we would have heard their testimony long ago. whether they help the democrats is, i think, is 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 it was criminal or impeachable. >> as we think of that very possibility of bolton potentially fiona hill has already done the job that he might do, although, not a first-hand witness. natasha bertrand, what do we make of this reporting coming out regarding lev parnas, a rudy giuliani affiliate here who may, we don't know, right?

may be seeing i can testify that devin nunes, again, the ranking member of 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 when we to be careful because lev parnas is kind of like a michael cohen figure, very bombastic, not the most credible person in the world and is trying to be has helpful to the democrats on the committee because he is undergoing a criminal investigation out of new york. so i think that his lawyers are probably diplomat for him to have any kind of impact that he could and get 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 that lev parnas said he was meeting with the former prosecutor in ukraine to get dirt on joe biden. if that's the case, then the

democratic representative adam smith said on msnbc this morning that it's quite likely there will will be an ethics investigation because devin nunes has been making a biss fuss about the idea that ukraine interfered in the election. if it's true he was meeting with the former prosecutor to dig up dirt on 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 by the congressman in order to further this help of the president. but there's going to be the 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 after a short break. coming up, the case against donald trump and 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're looking at whether democrats have met their burden

of proof. ng what's in his blood. at bayer, this is why we science. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ non-gmo, made with naturally sundown vitamins are all

sourced colors and flavors and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time.

wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

i'm richard lui. welcome back to the special coverage of the impeachment inquiry. 12 witnesses, 35 hours of testimony from mostly career public servants with decades of nonpartisan 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 that his efforts werefecting u.s. engagement with ukraine, leveraging his desire for a white house meeting. >> a member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought of ukraine. mr. sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden. >> now the president real time is attacking you, designed to intimidate, is it not? >> 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 a discussion of what appeared to be a domestic politicize matter. >> it was clear if ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 elections, the bidens

and bureau his rizzo ma, it would be interpreted assist partisan. >> as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden. >> what did ambassador sondland tell you that he told 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 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 gleaned from those conversations that ukrainian embassy was aware of a hold on the assistance? >> sir, i would say there was a kind of an issue, yes. >> are you saying marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot? >> i endorse what she says. >> and she served with grace and dignity? >> yes, she did. >> 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 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 foreign policy ambassador sondland stated, quote, damn it, rudy, every time he gets involved he goes and effs everything up. >> joining us now, editor at large and msnbc contributor charlie skooiks, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, joyce vance. politico national security correspondent, natasha bertrand, and former republican congressman from florida and msnbc creditor david jolly. charlie, since you're joining us, what do you make of that mashup? that is 35 hours shrunk into three minutes. 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 sucompelling. 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 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 have effectively laid out the case, they do have sufficient evidence, but i think the question that you've been raising are legitimate. they can't say rush? this is the most solemn responsibility of congress, one of the highest constitutional responsibilities that they have. and the question is are they going to pursue all the other

leads that came out? are they going to get more records and emails. they've gotten nothing so far. are they going to pursue what we learned about mick mulvaney, about secretary pompeo, about rudy giuliani's activities, about devin nunes's activities? i think there's a reason for democrats to possibly slow their roll here. yes, they have enough, but 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 on some of the things we learned over the last ten days. >> joyce, what's the risk here. i listened 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? was it secretary pompeo's or

donald trump? 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 that it occurred, but did it occur at the president's direction. that's what makes this timing issue so difficult. we've been getting new evidence, not just cumulative evidence that reinforces things 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? >> it's a strategical question from democrats. they withdrew their subpoena of charles kupperman, the national security adviser that went to court to say should i listen to the white house or the congress. congress said, we'll withdraw the subpoena and filed a motion

to dismiss so as to not prolong it. they need to lean on 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 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 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 his sharpie is the only truth teller. if you are 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 threat 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 barometer. he wasn't convinced in this 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 careful how this is happening and they do have to face an electorate coming this november. >> it was not necessarily even to move votes, right? by the end of this, it became clear to them that they could not in good conscience do this

with regard 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. 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 the senate republicans go along with it, which, of course, they won't, the democrats feel now they can move ahead knowing they at least will have impeached the president and held him accountable in that way. >> quick round. 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.

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies in criminal cases, but the higher burden can be met at this point. >> david, yes or no? >> yes. 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. when he extorted the ukrainians, he was not betraying ukraine, he was betraying america. he was betraying his oath of office to make sure that the laws are enforced and that our national security is protected. and i think that point needs to be emphasized more by the democrats. >> finally, narcottasha, yes or? >> gordon sondland saying everyone was in the loop and we have the record of the phone call with him and president zelensky asking for this. >> great panel. thank you so much. charlie skooikykes, you stick a. up next we'll dive into how russian aggression was helped by

republicans' conspiracy theories. was putin actually the big winner in all of this? when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more.

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.

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 at the withholding of aid to ukraine 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 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 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 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? what u.s. ambassador could be blamed for harboring the fear that they can't count on our government to support them as they implemented stated u.s. policy and protect and defend u.s. interests? >> an effort to legitimatize an alternate narrative that ukraine, not russia, attacked us in 2016. these fictions are harmful even if they are 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 partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other degrade great day 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 advisers had informed him that this theory of ukrainian 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. >> joining me nancy solderberg and former assistant secretary of state joel ruben. ambassador, as you look at the diplomatic corps that came

forward in the last two weeks, how did they do? >> well, they were the pinnal caller of what american public service stands for, upholding the constitution, telling the truth, not being intimidated, all americans should be grateful for the fact that they are getting up every day and defending american interests. that came clear after a parade of one after another that said i was advocating for american national security. my favorite line is fiona hill who said i was advocating for our national security and sondland was on a domestic political errand. that says it all right there. >> who articulated it the best for this deliberative body to consider? who do you think hit it best in terms of those who came forward from the diplomatic corps and the national security corps? >> i agree with the ambassador.

all of them did it very well and did an amazing job. alexander vindman, jennifer williams, you name it. the people who were doing the real work. i have to say i think 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. unfortunately what we've seen is the republicans behaving not as fiona hill said like a super pacs 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. the civil servants were

attacked. the patriotism needs to shine through, but the tactics by the republicans needs to be very clear. >> fiona hill came out pretty strongly about that word tactic in the attack that was coming from many members of the republican party. 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 forwa forwarding an idea from an adversity at the moment. the minority leader from the white house came out saying the very same thing the next day. >> they are already starting to investigate these types of things in the senate. i think there are two main lessons that came out of this 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 at appear important white house meeting to ukraine for his personal political gain? that's what happened. they'll argue nothing really happened, so it's fine, or yes, that was an impeachable offense. the second 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. apparently the senators have been briefed on the intelligence community's assessment that putin is the one putting forward this ukrainian server, this ukrainian native. 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 going to fall into the putin trap of putting forward this false narrative? 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 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 who had to talk about benghazi time and again and demanded documents and witnesses, for him to be hiding behind civil servants at the state department is cowardly and an obstruction of congressmen. people like rudy giuliani, they're not just fact witnesses, they're actual participants in this crime. we need to be very clear that donald trump, he bought the vladimir putin propaganda hook, line, and sinker. he's been pushing that into the narrative. so the republicans are going to their direction from donald trump right now on this, and that's exactly what needs to be discussed in the senate. >> former ambassador nancy solderberg and deputy assistant secretary of state joel ruben, 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. sourced cos and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time.

and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! upbeat music♪ no cover-up spray here.

cheaper aerosols can cover up odors in a flowery fog. but febreze air effects eliminates odors. with a 100% natural propellent. it leaves behind a pleasant scent you'll love. [ deep inhale] freshen up. don't cover up. febreze. 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. the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. cake in the conference room! showing 'em you're ready... to be your own boss.

that's the beauty of your smile. crest's three dimensional whitening... ...removes stains,... ...whitens in-between teeth... ...and protects from future stains. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. welcome back: republicans on the house intelligence committee radical around the president during the past two weeks of explosive testimony in the impeachment inquiry. the advanced defenses of president trump denied the existence of a expect, 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. 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 hours of hearsay conversations that two diplomats who had never spoken to the president heard secondhand and thirdhand 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 said, oh, yeah, he's going

to do it%. he'll do anything you ask. >> and was that the end of the ukraine portion of the conversation? >> yes. >> 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 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'll look at how the republican defense of trump may play out if and when impeachment goes to the senate. what a difference a few years and president trump have made in lindsey graham's feelings for the former vice president. 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. ♪ i used to book my hotel room on those traalways a catch.here was like somehow you wind up getting less. but now that i book at hilton.com, and i get all these great perks.

i got to select my room from the floor plan... very nice... i know, i'm good at picking stuff. free wi-fi... laptop by the pool is a bold choice... and the price match guarantee. how do you know all of this? are you like some magical hilton fairy? it's just here on the hilton app. just available to the public, so... book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

it is nice. his haircut is "nice." this is the most-awarded minivan three years in a row. the van just talked. sales guy, give 'em the employee price, then gimme your foot. hands-free sliding doors, stow 'n go seats. can your car do this? man, y'all getting a hook up and y'all don't even work here. don't act like i'm not doing y'all a favor. y'all should be singing my praises. pacificaaaaa! with employee pricing, get $4,107 below msrp plus $1,000 bonus cash plus 0% financing for 60 months on the 2020 pacifica limited i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream.

it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. if you can't admire joe biden as a person, there's probably -- you got a problem. biden as a person there's probably you got a problem. you need to do some self-evaluation. 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 for relationships for granted. >> senator lindsey graham with an emotional defense of joe biden, that was in 2016, we take it today, senator graham is now launching an investigation into the bidens and their business deals with ukraine. part of his defense of president trump's claims of wrong doing of the vice president and his son. the vice president now responding. >> he knows me. he knows my son. he knows there's nothing to do it. trump is now holding power on him that ukrainians wouldn't yield to. ukrainians wouldn't yield to this. and lindsey is about to go down in a way that i think he's going regret his whole life.

>> joined now by joel payne, democratic strategist. back with us, charlie sykes and ana currie. joel, as we look at what republicans and we'll focus on the senate for now, it does appear when get to a trial most probable after a vote coming from the house for impeachment, where are republicans senators going right now and one example of that are for instance, senators johnson and grassley calling for state department documents to be released related to hunter biden and burisma, this posted very recently on his website for instance, joel. >> well what i see republicans trying to go on parallel tracks and put up weather balloons and start to test out the atmospherics here.

you're making suggestions that you're going to take this trial very seriously. the people in your state just told you they take it seriously. 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 supposed deep state that the president has been going on. lot of republicans in senate probably don't know where they want to land. they probably unlikely to support removal of this president. they're unsure about how they're going to do that. >> charlie, let's add to that, lindsey graham's requests from the state department, documents on the bidens and ukraine. >> you know, lot of competition for this. lindsey graham is arguably the most shameless politician in america, what he has become,

what he's willing to do, i can't tell whether or not he's fundamentally sold himself out or always this way. there's a real risk for republicans in senate. vote to acquit and move on. question is, are they going to be moving from defenders and enables to actual co-conspirators, aid and abet this attempt to dig up dirt on joe biden, continue to aid and abet the dissemination of these bizarre conspiracy theories, which actually serve as you pointed out early, to advance the propaganda message of vladimir putin. do you really want to become a part of this? do you want to become so associated with donald trump's conduct that you're willing to become, i guess, part of the whole effort? >> and 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. he had them over to the white house this week to discuss what a senate trial would look like, disagreement between trump and the republicans in senate whether a short trial is beneficial or whether a long drawnout process where they could -- where he could expect the republicans to forcefully defend him that he did nothing wrong. as an opportunity to press his case is more beneficial. president trump wants a real trial, he wants it to go to a full trial and a long trial. mitt romney has been at the white house twice this week, which is unusual for him. but, but mostly we see that the white house thinks this is going to end up with an acquittal. >> richard, quickly.

i was going to say, we stood up this idea that lindsey graham is this independent minded person for a long time. i actually think that was the mistake. it's like which lindsey is lying, now, or the one who was buddy-buddy john mccain back in the day. in a "the new york times" profile a couple months ago, he his goal is relevance, selling his soul and getting behind donald trump, that's what he'll do. >> democratic strategist joel payne. charlie sykes. and white house correspondent annie karni. that wraps it up for me this hour. follow me on twitter, instagram and facebook. have a great night.

a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. it's specially-designed with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. cascade platinum's unique actionpacs dissolve quickly... ...to remove stuck-on food. . . for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. choose the detergent that lets your dishwasher do the dishes! cascade platinum. the number one recommended brand in north america.

hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. (burke) at so we know how to cover we'almost anything.verything (bert) even a "not-so-handy monster." (johnson) what is going on in here! i can't hear myself think! (grover) what does it look like, sir? i am here to help you with your water heater. (johnson) oh!

[sighs defeatedly] (grover) do not worry sir. i also fix cars! [johnson groans] (bert) grover is a monster of many talents! (burke) and we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. (bert) mmm. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum

tonight on a special edition of "all in." >> this president believes he is above the law, beyond accountability. >> two weeks into the impeachment inquiry, and the case against donald j. trump is strong. >> here's the big truth -- the president did it. he did it. >> what we know after a dozen officials testified, and are articles of impeachment next? >> frankly, i want to trial. >> plus, the all corruption