this sunday, damming testimony for president trump. >> was there a quid pro quo with regard to the requested white house call in the white house meeting? the answer is yes. >> ambassador gordon sondland says top trump administration officials all knew. >> everyone was in the loop. >> and that the word came from the top. >> so we followed the president's orders. >> also pushed back to the republican claims of ukrainian election interference. >> this is a fictional novelty that is being perpetrated and propagated by the russian services themselves. >> as the parties fight over what the president did. >> one ukrainian received the aid and two, there was no investigation into the bidens. >> there defense is they

released the aid, yes, after he got caught. >> where does the impeachment go from here? my guest this morning, house intelligence committee chairman democrat adam schiff and republican senator roger wicker of mississippi. >> plus, the infamous steele dossier. a big focus of congressional republicans. >> steele dossier. >> steele dossier. >> christopher steele . >> i'll talk to the men who hired steele about the dossier and the fallout. >> i have more black people supporting me in the community. >> how sturdy is joe biden's african-american support. joining me is nbc news correspondent katy tur. neal katyal, former north carolina governor pat mccrory. eliana johnson, editor in chief of the washington free beacon and michael eric dyson. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press."

>> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. if this were a courtroom drama, the democrats would seem to have all the evidence they need. 12 witnesses in two weeks painted a picture of a president and his administration allies working behind the scenes against the nation's interests to benefit the president politically. we heard first-hand testimony that president trump pressured president zelensky on that july 25th phone call to investigate his political enemies. ukraine officials began to ask questions where the aid was as early as that july phone call that president trump doesn't give a quote blank about ukraine, only about the investigations. most important, we heard from an insider who flipped that there was yes a quid pro quo, that officials were following president trump's orders and that the top echelon of the trump administration was all in the loop. but this is not a courtroom drama. it's a political one, with few signs public opinion has changed. republicans fought back

fiercely, arguing the testimony was heresy, fiercely inferred or unreliable and witnesses were more discredited than damning. democrats fist face an uncompromising calendar, do they face accusations they're more interests in doing the feel's business or do they rest their case and risk losing the chance to hear from possible key witnesses like mike pompeo, mick mulvaney, mike whence, who might change public opinion. in other words, after all we have absorbed these last two weeks, what now? >> the president has used his office for his own personal gain. >> for two weeks a dozen current and former officials have laid out a clear case, testifying that president trump used the promise of a white house meeting and a freeze on hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to pressure ukraine's new president to announce an investigation into a 2020 opponent, joe biden and biden's son. running the shadow foreign policy through the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani.

>> mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states. >> president trump making that quid pro quo explicit in a july 25th phone call with ukraine's president zelensky. >> i was concerned by the call. it is improper for the president of the united states to demand a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen and a political opponent. >> that same day -- >> the ukrainian embassy staff asked what is going on with ukrainian security assistance. >> a day later, the president was on the phone with u.s. ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland. >> 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. >> 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. >> mr. trump also pressed zelensky to look into a conspiracy theory shifting blame for 2016 election interference on to ukraine. a disinformation campaign that russia has perpetrated for years. >> you know, the fbi has never gotten that server. that's a big part of this whole thing. why did they give it to a ukrainian company? >> are you sure they gave it to ukraine? >> that's what the word is. >> this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. >> now house democrats are moving forward on an impeachment report and the president has been reaching out to republicans ahead of a senate trial, hosting lawmakers for lunches at the white house and weekends at camp david. just a few weeks ago, senate republicans appeared divided about whether to target hunter biden. >> i have tried to resist turning the senate into a circus. i don't want to go after joe and hunter biden because people are mad that trump's not getting a fair deal in the house. >> but now they're asking for documents and more. >> the vice president's son was

serving on a board that was run by the dirtiest guy in the your crane. >> i am disappointed and quite frankly i'm angered by the fact he knows me, he knows my son. he knows there's nothing to this. >> and joining me now is the chair of the house intelligence committee, congressman adam schiff. congressman schiff, welcome back to "meet the press." >> great to be with you. >> let me start with this. you have said you could continue to investigate while also compiling your report. what does that look like, and is it more for show or is there -- do you have evidence that more investigation is going to happen next week? >> certainly not for show. there's more work to be done, but at the same time, we have already accumulated quite overwhelming evidence that the president once again sought foreign interference in an election, conditioned official acts, white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted as well as $400 million of

bipartisan taxpayer funding to get these political investigations that he thought would help his re-election, so you know, we view this as urgent. we have another election in which the president is threatening more foreign interference. but at the same time, there are still other witnesses, other documents that we would like to obtain. but we're not willing to go the months and months and months of rope-a-dope in the courts which the administration would more than love for us to do. >> you have somebody right now, lev parnas, who according to his attorney, this is one of these associates of mr. giuliani, who apparently was always with him on these ukraine trips and made have been involved in a campaign finance scheme that's being investigated right now. he says he has some things to talk to gless about. are you going to hear from him? >> we have already subpoenaed him if documents. and we're in discussions with the southern district of new york. we're pursuing it, but at the same time, we would like to know what the documents have to say before we make a decision about witnesses. this is why we have subpoenaed pompeo for documents and others

for documents, as we saw during the hearings we had, those documents can be awfully important to knowing the right questions to ask. >> you just got some documents, a foia investigation, a foia request by an outside group ended up getting some documents that raised some more questions. that tie rudy giuliani, confirm some phone calls between rudy giuliani and the secretary of state, confirm, you know, and you had gotten those articles that giuliani was spreading around from the state department's ig. so there's more documents. again, more evidence. i mean, i want to put -- you have all these open leads. it just seems odd that you're stopping. >> well, we're -- >> look at all these open leads. >> it's important to know we're not stopping. it's also important to know this, chuck, and you have acknowledged this and i find this remarkable. the evidence is already overwhelming. right? the evidence is already overwhelming. >> but you're not in a courtroom. you know that. you have a political bar you have to meet. >> that's true, that's true, but the fact that republicans may be

derelict in their responsibility doesn't relieve us of our obligation to do our constitutional duty. we feel an urgency about that, so even as we compile this report, even as we submit evidence to the judiciary committee, we're going to continue with our investigation, but we are not going to let the administration stonewalling us stop us. and if people are acknowledging, and i think they're quite right that the evidence is overwhelming, you have to ask, what more would be necessary to show republicans indeed is there anything that could move republicans? >> let me give you one example. let me give you one example because it's one that a lot of republicans are hanging their hat on. if there is one piece of evidence you have not been able to surface, it is direct -- it is this idea, when did he order that the aid itself was to be withheld as a quid pro quo. you only have gordon sondland saying it was the meeting. it was the meeting and he assumed it. this is how they're hanging their hat.

>> i realize that. >> you can say it's a thin read, but it is a read. >> let's look at this. first, they hung their hat on there's no evidence of a quid pro quo. there was overwhelming evidence of a quid pro quo. now some are hanging their hat on what's your evidence that's the president withheld the military aid? the president's own chief of staff has admitted they withheld the military aid to get this investigation. this crazy dnc server investigation which is part of a russian disinformation campaign. the president's own chief of staff. i mean, they seem to be saying unless donald trump writes out, i bribed ukraine, the evidence will be insufficient. what every juror is told, and i don't think the senate is different from a jury here, at least it shouldn't be, is they don't leave their common sense at the door. there was no plausible explanation but one, and that was the president wanted this leverage to get ukraine to do his political dirty work. >> are you going to be a house impeachment manager? >> that will be up to the

speaker. >> would you like to be one? would you like to be one of the prosecutors? >> i don't want to get ahead of where we are, which is we haven't even brought up articles, made a decision about articles. >> is it possible that articles are not filed this year? >> i don't want to prejudge the outcome here. i do think the evidence, the facts of what the president did are really not contested. they're largely not contested. that's the remarkable thing. the question is, knowing the president sought foreign interference in our election, he conditioned acts to get political favors, are we ok prepared to say that's okay, that's a duty of the office, and members have to think about two things. one, the knowledge if we do anything, it is very likely the president will do this again. but second, are rupp republican prepared to say they will allow this president and other president said to stonewall congress and not provide evidence and that means that our

oversight ability is also a nullity. >> i know where you are on the whistleblower and the leaf you really don't need to hear from the whistleblower anymore. but you did blej that the intelligence committee would hear from the whistleblower in some form or another. are you going to fulfill that pledge? >> we had a deep interest in having the whistleblower testify until two things happened. one, we were able to prove everything in the whistleblower complaint with witnesses that had first-hand information. and second, the president and his allies effectively put that whistleblower's life in danger. the president said the whistleblower and others should be treated as a traitor or a spy. and we ought to use the penalty we used to use for traitors and spies. that's the death penalty. so here's the thing, chuck. we don't need the whistleblower's secondhand evidence anymore. it would only serve to endanger this person and to gratify the president's desire for retribution, and that's not a good enough reason to bring in the whistleblower. >> one last thing. on the senate trial. is one of the reasons you're not going to fight to try it in the

courts right now for bolton is you believe there's this theory that's been on talking points memo, a liberal organization, josh marshall, a legal theory running around that it's a lot easier to get the chief justice to compel john bolton to testify at a senate trial than it would be waiting around to get him to congress. do you buy into that theory? >> i think that may very well be true. people like john bolton, whose deputies had the courage to come in and testify, are going to have to answer one day why they saved what they knew for a book rather than tell the country when the country needed to know. but i do think that when it comes to documents and witnesses, that if it comes to a trial, and again, we're getting far down the road here, that the chief justice will have to make a decision on request for witnesses' documents. and so i don't envy that job. >> he may say that you should be a witness. they may want to call you. are you ready? >> if the senate want to call me

as a wintness, they made the decision not to take this process seriously. i'm not a fact witness. i was a chairman of one of the committees doing an investigation. i'm not in the shoes of the special counsel. i don't work for the justice department. all i can relate is what the witnesses said in deposition and in the open hearings, and that's no reason to call me as a witness. >> adam schiff, i'm going to leave it there, chair of the house intelligence committee. so right now, no public hearings scheduled for any time in the rest of this year? >> we don't foreclose the possibility of others. >> adam schiff, democrat from california, thanks for coming on. >> thank you. joining me now is republican senator roger wicker of mississippi, a member of the armed services committee. he also cochairs the commission of security and cooperation in europe. senator wicker, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> thank you. glad to be here. >> i want to start with something we got a report on earlier this week. it has to do supposedly an intelligence briefing that senators have received. first, let me play what fiona hill said about russia and ukraine at the hearing earlier

this week. >> right now, russia security services and their prux proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. we're running out of time to stop them. in the course of this investigation, i would ask you don't promote falsehoods that so clearly promote russian interests. >> can you confirm you have been given an intelligence briefing on the issue of russia trying to frame ukraine? >> some members have. i have not. i'm not surprised russia is gearing up, not at all surprised that she's correct that russia tried to interfere in 2016. also, ukrainians themselves tried to interfere also. but chuck -- >> isn't that a big difference? look, i understand there's individual ukrainians who were upset that candidate donald trump had wanted crimea to stay with russia. is that the same as the russian government and president putin ordering a full pledged campaign. >> i'm concerned about both. let me say this, chuck. i just have to start -- i

totally disagree with your lead-in to this whole show today. >> okay. >> i think the washington punditry is somewhat in a bubble on this. i think the democrats had a bad week. >> why is that? >> last week. >> why is that? >> okay, for one thing, the polls are turning. in the president's favor. you have the marquette poll, in wisconsin, which is the gold standard of wisconsin polls. then you have the emerson poll, which is a nationwide poll, which actually shows trump's favorability going up. and i just think the people out there don't think this investigation is fair. they know that only democrat witnesses were allowed to be called. none of the winces -- >> that's not true. some of them were indeed called. there were republican witnesses called. >> here's what happened. there were three witnesses that democrats asked for, and republicans asked for. those three witnesses --

>> fair enough. >> got called. none of the witnesses that were exclusively called by the republicans were asked. and you know, you ask the question about the whistleblower. and so chairman schiff has decided that it wouldn't be beneficial to his case. well, it might be beneficial if some of the republicans were allowed to cross-examine this person. so it's a totally, totally inadequate -- >> i understand you disagree with my premise. let me put up what peggy noonan said. she's no liberal, last time i checked. this is her take on the impeachment process. the case has been so clearly made, you wonder what exactly the senate will be left doing, how will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? who exactly will be the president's witnesses. those who testified he didn't do what he appears to have done and would never do it. respond to peggy noonan on this. >> i disagree with peggy on that, and of course, she writes a column every week in the "wall

street journal." and it's not the first time i have disagreed. >> fair enough. >> but you know, again, let me go back to what the public is saying. i do think the public is kind of tuning out, kind of bored. >> look, there's a political argument and a legal argument. let's set aside the political argument. are you at all troubled by the behavior of the president, rudy giuliani, what was done here, the fact that he mentioned bidens, never talked about corruption in the phone call? any of this stuff trouble you? >> i think the phone call, and i read the transcript, went back and read it last night. i think the phone call was le t legitimately about corruption in ukraine. >> let me pause there, because here's what the president said he wanted to see president zelensky do in response to his phone call. this is the president's own words. >> mr. president, what exactly did you hope zelensky would do about the bidens after your phone call? >> well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they

would start a major investigation into the bidens. >> more confirmation he was asking about the bidens, senator. he didn't mention corruption. >> i just hurt what the president said. here's what zelensky said. he said he was under no pressure to do anything. he didn't even know the aid was being held up. >> you don't think he feels pressure not to disagree with president trump right now in public? in fairness, do you think that would be a good idea of him if he disagreed with the president's take? >> i think he's telling the truth, and i think -- you know, if you're going to try to remove the president of the united states from office, you need concrete evidence and the other person on the part of this so-called quid pro quo denies that there was a quid pro quo. and also, let me just interject this. everything that you felt was so compelling in your lead-up, was guesswork, was heresy. there was no direct evidence of

pressure on the ukrainian government to do a certain act in order for the aid to go forward. and i just really, i don't see what you and your producers see in the lead-up there. i think it was a bad week. i don't think the american people are moving away from the democratic position. >> let me ask you this. i want to play an excerpt from your support for clinton's impeachment, and let me play that. >> the rule of law means that the commander in chief of our armed forces could not be held to a lower standard than his subordinates. the rule of law is more important than the tenure in office of any elected official. >> if you see proof in the senate trial that this president of the united states violated the rule of law, would that be enough for you? >> i'm nowhere close to seeing that proof. let me say this, we learned some political lessons in the

impeachment of bill clinton. but give us this. there were democrats who voted for impeachment also in the house of representatives. and a judge in arkansas had -- >> do you regret that? >> as a matter of fact, the president bill clinton had committed perjury. a felony in almost every state. the evidence was pretty overwhelming. not to mention taking advantage of a young employee. >> you have a lot of military bases, a lot of military constituents. i'm curious, we're going to -- we may have a large debate about this. who should decide who is a s.e.a.l.? the president of the united states or fellow s.e.a.l.s? you're probably aware of the controversy involving this chief, chief gallagher here. should the president short circuit this or not? would you like to see the s.e.a.l.s make this decision? >> i think the president as commander in chief can make this decision. >> he can legally make it. should he, though? >> i feel very comfortable with him making it. i feel very comfortable with what he's done on the other two

cases. so i'm with him there. sorry. >> no, i'm just asking. don't apologize to me. senator roger wicker, republican from mississippi, thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> when we comr back, where does impeachment go from here? we have a lot to discuss. panel is next. we made usaa insurance for members like kate. a former army medic, made of the flexibility to handle 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 in connemara. right! connemara it is! there's one gift the whole family can share this holiday season, their story. give the gift of discovery, with an ancestrydna kit.

our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.

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. back now with the panel. neal katyal was acting solicitor general under president obama. he makes the case to impeach donald trump. georgetown university professor michael eric dyson. eliana johnson, editor in chief of the washington beacon, which is a new gig for her. katy tur, host of msnbc live, and former republican governor of north carolina, pat mccrory. welcome all. i almost just want to throw the puck out, but neal, we're having you for one block here, so i'm going to start with a quote, the essential case you're making that we feel like, we call it the monopoly quote.

asking us to wait until the election to remove president trump from office is asking to resolve a dispute based on who wins a game of monopoly when the very crime you have been accused of is cheating at monopoly. i heard adam schiff start to try to make that case, but that has not been the lead way the democrats have made their case. has that been a mistake? >> ient dop think it's been a mistake. i think there's been a lot of complexity around the whole investigation, details, witnesses, and the like. now is the time to simplify it. that's what the book is about, the simple definitive guide to why the president needs to be impeached. it begins with the simple point, what's impeachment about? in 1787, it was put in there. a lot of founders didn't want in the constitution. they put it in for ampal reason, we're worried about a president who self-deals, who cheats, and who gets help from a foreign government. fast forward 200 years. that's exactly where we are. >> pat mccrory, are you on the side of they haven't made their legal argument or they haven't made their political argument? >> they haven't changed any

opinions on the jury of the people or the jury of the senate. and that means -- >> you believe it's only a political case. >> i think from a legal standpoint and a political standpoint, 93 opinions have changed on the jury on either side, no matter what nancy pelosi has said, no matter the arguments that adam schiff and others are presenting in books. everyone has heard the arguments on network tv. gavel to gavel coverage. nothing has changed. a taxi cab driver told me last night, move on. do the work of congress. work on immigration, work on health care, work on foreign policy, work on the deficit. they have heard everything. and you can't go now attack the jury. you can't say, oh, the jury has no common sense. the jury are a bunch of idiots. it's almost getting to the deplorable thing. if you disagree with the conclusion that people have, you can't then go insult them even more. they're not going to change their opinion on what they have heard so far. >> let me play, look, republicans are in lock step on what they believe they learned from the hearings.

take a listen. >> i think it's very clear there was no quid pro quo. >> whether she's right or he's right doesn't change the facts. there was no quid pro quo. you can't just have we presume. this was the case that didn't happen. >> the facts remain the same. ukraine got the aid. there was no quid pro quo, and there was no investigation into the bidens. >> and katy tur, this seems to be, i think, among the safest harbors that republicans can hang their hat on, what stefanik said in the last comment. okay, at best, you can say he attempted to do all these things, but ultimately, it didn't happen. >> it only didn't happen because the whistleblower complaint came out. that's the argument the democrats are making. they're lining up the timeline and saying this is a suspicious timeline, and oh, also, if you try to rob a bank, you still tried to rob a bank. you did something wrong. you almost have to suspend disbelief in order to make the argument the predwasn't involved in any way or the ukrainians didn't know about this when witness after witness testified over and over again that they were working at the direction of rudy giuliani or they had

conversations with the president or were talking to the ukrainians and the ukrainians felt pressure or the president wanted these investigations done. also, the president himself has said it. he said it on camera, you played it a moment ago, and he said it in the phone call with president zelensky. >> you know, it does feel like, and eliana, the two sides are just not -- they're talking past each other. republicans are making a political argument. democrats are making a legal argument, and they're going, how does the other side not see what we see? that's what i'm taking away from this. >> i actually think rr choosing to emphasize different things. republicans are trying to say what the president, the president tried to do something, but it never happened. the democrats are saying, you know, there was a quid pro quo or even if you tried, it was still very bad. ultimately, it's a political question. i think this was a gamble for democrats. and i think what the senator tried to say and maybe didn't do artfully is it's a political question. americans tend not to care a whole lot about foreign policy.

i think it was risky for democrats to pursue impeachment on a question of foreign policy. over the past week alone, support for impeachment among independents has dropped seven points. in a political poll that is the one that i'm referring to, independents ranked impeachment below -- lowest among things they care about below the deficit, health care, and even trump's border wall. in pursuing it, it was risky for d.s. it's looking like a losing bet at this point in that it dropped an enormous amount during the public hearings. >> michael. >> yeah, well, at least it's raised our iq when it comes to latin. i don't know if it's quid pro quo, but it is, arguing in a circle. so you do begin with a presupposition you want to confirm. you look at the evidence and subject it to your own understanding, and you see it through your own prism. my god, there are such things as incommensurable vocabularies. you say one thing, i say one, never will they meet. the senate is the electoral

college for donald trump. he lost the popular vote, but he won the electoral college. so now, you know, despite these polls, the fact is we have incontrovertible evidence that this man has committed a huge wrong. bribery, and whatever else that has reasonably been put forth and been supporting, if in a court of law, heresy evidence and secondhand evidence are exceptions and asterisks thereat are allowed when you have an overwhelming case. and here's the thing, no matter what donald trump does, he admitted from the beginning, he said if i go out in the middle of the street and kill somebody, then america will stand with me. his base is proving he's right, and i think the unfortunate loser here is the american public. but i think the democrats must not give in and capitulate to the notion that, oh, if we engage in theater here, trying to win the political argument, it is not theater. it is strategy trying to determine how we make the facts more salient to the american public. >> neal, what's a senate

trial -- democrats might not win the verdict they want in the senate trial, but can their trial be effective? >> absolutely. so first of all, i totally disagree with this idea that the jurors are baked and we know what's going to happen. as a lawyer, you don't count votes until it's over. that vote occurs in the senate, and it's a long time from now. we're at chapter one. chapter two is that senate trial. how does it look, chuck? i think it looks with a lot of evidence we're not even able to see right noul, testimony of bolton and other people. >> you think we will see all that? you think the chief justice -- that changes a lot of dynamic. >> absolutely. so i think this is -- we're at the very start this and i do not think this is about polls. this is about the constitution and what our duties are and to get the truth out about what the president did. >> we heard the same argument in mueller. wait until the next argument. >> let's see the process unfold. >> i think what we learned here is that both sides are convinced that their angle of the

argument, eliana, i think you put it well, is a winning hand. >> when we come back, the men behind the man behind the infamous dossier. these are the die guys who hired christopher steele. find out what they have to say now next. now next when you shop small you help support your community - from after school programs to the arts! so become a regular, more regularly. because for every dollar you spend at a small business, an average of 67 cents stays in the community. join me and american express on small business saturday, november 30th, and see how shopping small adds up.

♪

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.

welcome back. a few things were cited more often by republicans in the impeachment hearings than the so-called steele dossier. the steele dossier, its author, christopher steele, and fusion gps were mentioned 32 times by house republicans. the dossier said the republicans had dirt on mr. trump that could be used to blackmail him. republicans have argued the salacious dossier is evidence russians were working with democrats to spear mr. trump. now the two men who created fusion gps have written a book. and glenn simpson and peter frisch, the founders of the company, join me now. gentlemen. >> good morning. >> welcome to "meet the press." >> nice to be with you. >> peter, why did you feel the need to write this book? and i say this because it also means revealing a lot of secrets. >> right. well, thanks for having us on. we wrote the book to tell the real story of the steele

dossier, which is arguably you would agree one of the most important documents in recent political history. we started this work on donald trump in the fall of 2015. looking for republicans, to look at the business dealings of donald trump and his business record. >> republican donor and another republican organization that was looking for background information for what, reporting? opposition research? >> that's correct. they're looking for -- look, they're trying to stress test his suitability for president. i don't know if they were pro-trump, anti-trump. that's to be decided. but you know, it started out as an ordinary business investigation. it wasn't really about russia. as time went on, we realized he had branched out his business empire around the world, we began looking at other countries, it wasn't just russia. this is all recounted in great detail in the book. it was a fairly typical investigation for the first seven months or so, but it eventually did lead us to

russia. but it doesn't make logical sense for it to be a democratic conspiracy if half -- if the first half of the investigation was paid for by republicans. >> let me ask this about the steele dossier. some of the larger findings, some could argue, have been proven true. trump is vulnerable to russian blackmail was one of the allegations. a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the trump campaign and russia. trump knew and approved of wikileaks. but none of those allegations have been proven. do you still stand by them? >> first, it's important to remember who christopher steele is, a former british intelligence officer who rose to run mi-6's russia desk. this is one of the most capable and one of the most knowledgeable experts on russia in the world today. and he -- he had spent a lot of time going through the dossier to sort out information from disinformation, credible facts from noncredible facts. >> let me ask this, you guys, and glenn, one of the odder coincidences is the russian

lawyer. i hope i pronounced her name correctly, who you were working with. saw her on the same day as the infamous trump tower meeting. you claim in the book you did not know it at the time. but you even write in the book that, oh, now you're starting to wonder, were you drawn in and worked in a way? if you might have been drawn in and worked in a way, how do you know christopher steele isn't? >> because chris is a true pro at this, i'm an ex-journalist. he spent his whole life in this area. his single focus of expertise is russian intelligence and russian disinformation. we talk about it at length in the book. we also tack in the book very candidly about, you know, let's be honest. there are certain things we wonder about. we would like to know more. >> like what? >> it's important to remember, by the way, that the pass is prologue. we're sitting here today at the end of 2019. does anyone doubt that donald trump would be capable of inciting a foreign or working with a foreign government to affect the political process here in this country? that's exactly what the house is

looking at right now. >> let me get you to respond to fiona hill. she called it -- most people may know what was said, but hoerz what she said. >> dr. hill, during your tepsition, i asked you, was christopher steele's dossier a rabbit hole. do you remember the answer you gave? >> yes, i thought it was a rabbit hole. >> you also said a couple pages later in the deposition or the transcript i have here of your deposition, that you thought he got played. is that fair? >> that is fair, yes. >> fiona hill is an expert. >> she is. actually, she's not of the same exact area of expertise as chris. she's not a disinformation specialist. >> okay. >> and so she is a russia specialist in general. she's entitled to her opinion. i know she knows chris and has worked with him for a long time. so i'm not sure that that is very well understood from that one remark. >> i was puzzled by her comment because i don't really know what a rabbit hole means in that

context. i will say, though, you can't actually catch rabbits without going down some rabbit holes. you need to actually follow leads where they take you, and we have full confidence in chris' ability to do exactly that. >> her broader statements about what the russians are doing not just in our country but around the world match up exactly with our work. >> one of the things i think people may not realize is you're still actively doing an investigation of donald trump. explain what it is. >> it's actually not an investigation of donald trump. what we're doing is investigating russia's efforts to affect and disrupt western democracies. so that's france, that's britain, that's hungary, any number of countries. >> who's paying you? >> it's a nonprofit. >> is this this ron reiner thing, that whole consortium group? >> it's called the democracy integrity project. i don't know what his connection is to it, if he has one. >> it's run by daniel jones. he's the former staffer who wrote the intelligence report on

the cia torture program. >> and what is going to happen to these findings? is it going to be made public? do you turn it over to law enforcement, do you give it to a political campaign? >> that's for the nonprofit to decide. so it depends on what the information is. but we have tried, you know, the charter is public education. so in one form or another, we're attempting to educate the public about russia's attempts to undermine western democracies, not just in the united states. >> before i go, what kind of toll has this taken on you personally? i would assume a bit. you have been targeted personally, harassed personally online. talk about it? >> really unpleasant for a long time. we were forced by various covenants we had with our clients to remain silent about our role. that was hard to take when you have on a daily basis republicans pushing lies about you, much as they're doing about whistleblowers today and other patriots who are actually standing up for democracy. it's really, really unhappy and

we had legal bills. >> rudy giuliani attacking you this week, making claims. and you confronted him. >> that's right. i wanted to put him on notice that we're just not going to let him deliberately lie about us. let's be clear, he's not confused. he's deliberately lying. we're going to respond when people deliberately lie about us, especially if it's the president of the united states's lawyer. >> peter and glenn, the book, it is a fascinating read, no matter what you think of the steele dossier, if you talk about it, you should read this book. and then start talking about it again. when we come back, the democratic race. african-american support is keeping joe biden's candidacy afloat, but can he count on keeping it? that's next. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey.

along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix. the pain and swelling.. the psoriasis. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain

of active psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. get real relief, with cosentyx.

welcome back. data download time. many of the democrat, 2020 hopefuls used wednesday night's democrat, debate in atlanta to court african-american voters whose support so far has kept joe biden on top nationally. but just how sturdy is that support? we decided to dig into data from our polls conducted all throughout this year. combined them into one big poll. biden is still the clear front-runner in our poll among voters overall. in fact, among black voters he does better, 50% among african-american voters compared to 12% for elizabeth warren, 10% for bernie sanders, and just 2%

for pete buttigieg. some may chalk this up to biden's high name i.d. and his time serving vice president to the first african-american president, but in fact, it may be because black voters just look a lot like biden's other core constituency groups regardless of race. only 34% of black democrats call themselves liberal. that's a 20% drop from other democrat said, compared with 61% of democratic african-american primary voters who self describe as moderate or conservative. 16 points higher than the rest of the democratic party overall. and how about age? only 18% of the african-american primary vote right now is in the 18 to 34-year-old age group. that's nine points loeter than the party overall. it's compared to 57% of african-american primary voters who are 50 and older. six point higher than the party overall. so look at it, older, moderate, or conservative voters. they have always been voters that biden has been able to win over. that's true even when you remove race from the equation. and that might make this black

voters less likely to support sweeping changes that bernie sanders or elizabeth warren are running on, looking for a small c conservative change. is that joe biden? as this race shifts south, black voters could keep biden in the front of the pack regardless of what happens in iowa or new hampshire. >> when wi come back, end game, with colin kaepernick, jay-z, and joe biden -- sort of. stay with us. [ applause ] thank you. it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to.

it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium. 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

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.

back now with end game. the issue of african-american support for pete buttigieg seemed to be a theme of the debate on wednesday night except it seemed as if all the candidates didn't know how to talk about it other than buttigieg. here's buttigieg and kamala harris back to back on this issue of buttigieg's arguably inability to woo african-american voters. >> while i do not have the experience of ever having been

discriminated against because of the color of my skin, i do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country. >> so we're going to now say that my pain is worse than your pain? these are all injustices but to start comparing one group's pain to the other is misguided. >> what was interesting about kamala harris's criticism post debate is she had an opportunity to say it right back at pete buttigieg and she backed off. when he gave his answer, there was more to it. i think at some point saying i know, i'm not going to compare struggles but, and she decided not to do it but she did it off camera. what does that tell you? >> well, first of all, she's reinforcing a point that many made. you can't engage in an oppression derby. >> whatever -- somebody always feels oppressed. >> if you ain't in kentucky it's bad. what's interesting is she also had to deal with the gauntlet

had been thrown down is that black people are more gay -- more homophobic. so now you're thinking if i come at him then it reinforces the perception of black people being more homophobic. i think it's unfortunate. james baldwin said that the problem many black people had with jews is not that they were jewish, they were white. the problem with pete buttigieg, it's not that he's gay, his politics have been whitewashed to a degree that they have whitewashed his capacity to forge relationships. to single out black people is especially ironic because for one -- in one sense the reason some black people are so sensitive to homosexuality is their heterosexuality has been cleared. when you get them looked at on an auction block. hyper sensitive to look at that is outside the realm. >> let me ask this, can pete buttigieg become the nominee?

>> of course. it's not too much of a problem. he has to be self-critical. most black people, unlike me, are conservative morally and conservatively socially even if not politically. if many republicans hadn't been caught in a quagmire of bigotry they could exploit the culturallism of black people. >> what's kind of interesting also is joe biden when he was vice president was the one who converted barack obama into supporting gay marriage, which he didn't support in his second term when he was running for re-election. >> at least he outed him. he outed obama. >> as a supporter. >> as a supporter. that's what i'm saying. >> so it's kind of a triangle here that we have in the democratic party. the only other thing is you can't outfool barack obama. anyone who has command of the stage like barack obama did. i was on the campaign trail against barack obama. he's cool. it's personal with the african-american community.

kamala harris is trying to be cool. she can't. she doesn't have it. >> you know what's interesting? is that i think the black response to kamala and cory, tremendous individuals with extraordinary talent, is a delayed response of disappointment in barack obama that black people cannot specifically articulate it. they love obama the man but politically they see there were problematic situations so they want their cake and eat it too. >> kellyanne? >> my question for the democratic party is who is the candidate that both sides of the dem crass particular party can agree on in the general election? is that going to be somebody like pete buttigieg? is it going to be biden? is biden going to inspire the progressive base? will the bernie supporters move over to biden? is that a good bet in 2016? you're going to talk about who can present a diverse coalition. yes, biden certainly has the

black vote locked down at least as of now. who can lock down that vote? who can lock down the progressive vote? who can convince bernie supporters to support them? >> i think democrats are in an interesting position right now. they basically have four front-runners and none of those front-runners really has the momentum. the race -- the race question for pete was basically a subtext of that debate. nobody really came at him. even though kamala harris criticized him afterwards, kamala harris and cory booker also don't have the support of african-american voters. joe biden is really the only candidate that has strong african-american support which is fascinating. >> michael, you're going to kill me. i only have a second. let me just ask this. >> right. >> does jay z at all feel like using him? there's been a lot of accusations out there that he's being used by the nfl. >> here's the thing. talking about racism and racial lens. why is it when a black guy sits at the table the black guy is

using you. get this, it was jay z's presence that forced the nfl to do something. >> you know how to listen to production. thank you, sir. that's all we have for today. thank you for watching. have a wonderful thanksgiving holiday. it is my favorite tradition because you can make any tradition you want. we'll be back next week though because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." it's v÷press." [ music playing ] 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. i'm a regular in my neighborhood. i'm a regular at my local coffee shop and my local barber shop. when you shop small you help support your community - from after school programs to the arts! so become a regular, more regularly.

because for every dollar you spend at a small business, an average of 67 cents stays in the community. join me and american express on small business saturday, november 30th, and see how shopping small adds up. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

good evening, everyone. welcome to "case kasie dc." both the congress and country, as you can imagine, deeply split. plus, republican senators demand documents into joe biden and the obama administration. i am joined by democratic senator chris coons about what awaits the impeachment case when it arrives across the capitol. at 8 p.m. i'm going to talk one o