the breaking story from t"the washington post". white house review showing extensive effort to justify trump's decision to block ukraine military aid. one of the authors is on the phone with us right now. thanks for jumping on the horn, the story just coming out authored by you. give us the summary. i read the headline but this is just coming in to us through your reporting. >> yeah, thanks for having me. the story we have been hearing for a little bit of time privately at the "washington post" was that the white house was doing an internal records review to figure out what happened with the way they had handled ukraine's military aid and the president's decisions. there was a protective move but what we learned is in the white house records review there is the chief of staff, mick mulvaney and the omg discussing after the president had blocked aid to ukraine trying to figure out how do we justify. what is our legal reasoning and public justification for holding up this aid? the timing is interesting, too, because the search for a r

first, back to the new revelations from the "washington post." a confidential white house review has turned up hundreds of e-mails showing extensive efforts to justify president trump's decision to freeze military aid to ukraine after the fact. the delay of aid to crane is uk at the center of this ongoing impeachment inquiry in the house. the documents are between mick mulvaney and white house budget officials from early august. remember, trump ordered the hold in mid july. the report also says white house lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. the white house counsel's review of documents was triggered by the house impeachment inquiry. intel chairman adam schiff talked about the importance of linking the president's decision to freeze ukrainian aid to his efforts to dig up dirt about the bidens. >> yes, the president's own chief of staff, the person who meets with the president every day on live camera admitted exactly that vis-a-vis the m

complaint was filed, then the white house and staff and mick mulvaney, according to reporting from the "washington post" then began an effort to try to understand, justify, explain why aid to ukraine was held up. just reading a little bit from the reporting, again, jonathan's colleagues at the "washington post," carol, i spoke to last hour, reading from some reporting, the government accountability office warned omb it was not following the law in how it chose to disperse congressionally approved funds. that's the question, when were the funds withheld and how were they withheld, and based on how that happened, was it of any import. that's the reporting in the last two hours, if you're adam schiff and democrat you're looking at this very carefully if you're looking for democrats. >> let's get into this with my panel. jonathan, your colleagues at the "washington post" broke this story. how and could this affect the impeachment proceedings? >> it will affect the impeachment proceedings in that it's new information. one of the contentions during the hearings was the white house was limiting the release or

on cue "the washington post" reported over the weekend that a growing number of g.o.p.ators consider acknowledging trump since quid pro quo on ukraine. the media, they are running wild with it. >> some senates are on the brink of publicly admitting that there was a yo ukraine quid pro quo. >> they're arguing for a shift in strategy, acknowledging the quid pro quo, but insisting it's not an impeachable offense. >> it's the republican party and they're realizing they have nowhere else to go except for acknowledging there was a quid pro quo. >> laura: hold on. joining me now is lindsey grah lindsey graham, chairman of the senate judiciary committee. is this true and is this a rhetorical argument? assuming all of your facts nancy and adam, assuming it's true, it's still not impeachable. is that is what is going on? >> here is what you could take, there's not one vote impeachment. based on the phone call. i don't believe met romney would vote to remove the president over the phone call. one, he did nothing wrong. if that's an impeachable offense you won't have any presidents

the news about flynn's secret conversations. and just a few weeks ago "the post" did it again. it was september 5th, an editorial in "the washington post," again, not a news story but an editorial which broke the news of the scandal that would eventually lead to the current impeachment proceedings against president trump. this was the first report. september 5th, this year, editorial page, "the washington post." you see the headline. trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election. it's an editorial but they just nailed it news wise. quote, ukraine's president volodymyr zelensky has -- some he has suspended 250 million military aid. some suspect mr. trump is once again catering to mr. putin who's dedicated to undermining ukrainian democracy and independence. but "the post" says, we're reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda. he's attempting to force president zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u.s. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate, joe biden. mr. trump is not just soliciting ukraine's help, he's using u.s. military aid the country despera

in the newest "the washington post" nbc poll biden has 28%, warren up 23%. both sit in that polls almost 6 point margin of error. sanders falls in third place with just 17%. in the latest fox news poll biden at 31% leading by 10 points. elizabeth warren at 21%, and bernie sanders at 19%. another statistical tie. in hypothetical matchups against the president according the latest nbc news wall street journal poll, trump would fair one point better than warren. and in the fox news head to head biden would have a 12-point advantage over the president, 51% to 39%. sanders leads by 9 points, and warren by 5, 46 to 41. >> and we should mention that two candidates mayor pete buttigieg and senator cory booker will both be in the big line up of guests today on "morning joe." let's switch gears to the weather. >>> the weather kind of a shock to the system this weekend with losing daylight in the frigid cold really coming in. this is canadian air, and we have a series of clipper systems really going to impact us throughout the week. daytime highs are going to fall about

this is new reporting from "the washington post." and according to "the post," the documents include e-mail exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials from early august. president trump ordered the hold in mid-july. the reporting also says white house lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could at a minimum embarrass the president. tom hamburg is the investigative reporter at "the washington post." he and his colleagues broke this explosive report today. what exactly do these documents reveal, tom? >> ana, what they show is that there was extensive discussion going on inside the white house, indeed inside the executive branch after the president decided in july to with hold the congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine. and it reveals some pretty heated discussions behind the scenes. >> and do they actually expose the real reason the aid was put on hold? >> you know, it doesn't quite take us there. what's apparent from

according to the washington post fa ct to do. as made 13,aa5 false 01’ office and he has made 13,aa5 false or misleading claims. the washington post makes some claims that are false and misleading as well. this president is the first unscripted president is the first unscripted president we have had in recent memory. most speak almost entirely from a speech when in public. he's a salesman. i do think it would be better if you got closer and double check facts before he went public with them and thus create some issues of confusion, i do not think it purposefully lies. he once said he likes to exaggerate to make a point and if you understand his showbiz background, it becomes more contextual. as a journalist you are candid enough to admit that in retrospect some of the things you have written have been over the top, some of your commentary but you do value some of your commentary but you do va lu e fa cts some of your commentary but you do value facts and you worry about the environment in which we now live because of social media

"the washington post" said he couldn't do that but he did produce a memo saying there was no campaignthe president said this was fake news. he attacked cnn and "the washington post." you can see that tweet here. why does this matter? does it matter that bill barr said, look, i'm not going to do this? allegedly. i'm not going to come out and hold this press conference and say you did nothing wrong? >> this does matter. it's another example of president trump wanting his justice department to back him up. and he's said, many times, in public, in private, he's said this so many times, that he wants the d.o.j. and an attorney general that's going to have his back. he wanted attorney general bill barr to come out in public and basically do a repeat of what he did with the mueller report. he came out and said everything was totally fine. the president did nothing wrong, et cetera. now, barr didn't do it and, hopefully, we'll hopefully learn in the coming days why. but let's be crystal clear. they put out a statement, a written statement, that said, there wasn't even enough evidence for an i

get an advantage in 2020. >> as for what the public thinks about all of this there is a new "the washington post"/abc news poll showing 49% believe the president should be impeached and removed from office. 47% say he should not. here for our lead-off discussion on a friday night, susan page washington bureau chief for "usa today," and white house correspondent for npr, and senior legal affairs contributor for politico. thanks to you for being with us. susan, let me start with you. we heard from the president tonight in mississippi. staunchly red state. staunchly pro trump state. i have to ask you those clips we played where he addressed the impeachment question there head on, he demeaned the process, went after democrats, all of the things on twitter he said in front of that audience, republican members of congress, was this an attempt to remind them that in his view the base of the party is with him and essentially to deliver them a witness? you don't want that base turning on you, do you? >> you know, this has been a very successful argument for president trump. you look at the impeachment vo

this is the headline from "the washington post" today. reporting on the first day of the trump impeachment, "testimony puts trump closer to scandal." this was the all the way across the front page headline in "the new york times" today. they put theirs in capital letters. envoy reveals scope of trump ukraine push. this was the l.a. times, testimony builds case against trump. here's the st. louis post dispatch, "pressure campaign, testimony ties trump more directly to ukraine efforts." "historic hearings begin." this was the print edition of politico. "democrats land damning new evidence in testimony." this was one of my favorites actually, the providence journal in rhode island. they kept it simple this is the whole top half of the front page all driven by that big photo and the supporting photos in the supporting cast of characters, but that simple headline, "impeachment begins." if you still subscribe to the print edition of the paper, number one god bless you. that's how i learned how to read as a little kid was reading the newspaper at

by the way, that word though was left out of "the washington post" today. i don't know why. that is somebody's fault over there. >> the house democrats say that is the piece of the puzzle l they don't have. >> they say that but they have the president's conversation which alerted -- and mick mulvaney the former congressman from south carolina the omb director the president's acting chief of staff says quid pro quo. that's where we started this discussion with nancy pelosi the speaker recognizing in that conversation impeachable behavior. >> right. but mick mulvaney obviously took that back. he said it once but took it back. the thing they don't know is exactly who called up omb and how that happened with that information. that's the one piece that cooper has shed a little light on. >> i think impeachment, the process is much more like a rico charge, who is running the operation? this president is running the operation. i've worked in politics all my life. the boss runs everything. never blame the staff ever. it's not haldeman, not erlichman, it's dick nixon. criticizing the c

>> joining me now, ruth marcus, deputy editor of "the washington post," and the reporter behind "the r chief spokesman for the department of justice. ruth, jeff sessions, beleaguered for recusing himself, which was not optional, it was an absolute requirement under the ethics -- >> the ethics folks at justice told him to do it, it wasn't his call. >> and how he's going to take it again? >> he's a glutton for punishment. or it's really hard to give up power. but wow, is he in for it, because one thing we know about this president, he does not give up a grudge easily. his relationship with jeff sessions, this was the first sitting senator to endorse him. then it's just turned into this buddy movie gone bad. and this is going to be fun to watch. alabama has turned out to be a state that is just going to keep on giving in terms of amusing us with its politics. >> i believe, if i'm not incorrect, jackie, the president is going to an alabama football game with the crimson tide tomorrow. he's going to have an entire stadium of maybe 100,000 screaming fans to deride jeff sessions. >> the pres

here is what jeff bezos's personal newspaper, "the washington post" said that your book is quote part of a larger effort on the right to create a framework for crump r trumpism, to contort the president's impulses into something that can help the movement. your response. >> i don't think i contort anything and the democrats, f.d.r., j.f.k. all had nationalist tendencies but the democrats turned their backs on nationalism and the republican party lost touch with nationalism. that's why this force was there for donald trump to pick up and it is a natural force. it's a powerful force. it's a very old force. efforts to eradicate it throughout history have always failed. that last clip you showed right before i came on about he's white and he's a nationalist. so was alexander hamilton. so was abraham lincoln. so was teddy roosevelt. i've encountered this in the early reaction to my book that there are people on the left as you know if they're not accusing somebody else of bigotry they would be rendered practically mute. >> laura: rich, people in your own magazine, "national review" have wr

there's another one to the washington post. we wouldn't be talking about vindman being told to keep his mouth shut were it not for leak. there's been tons of leaks coming from the democrats to shape the story, to shape the narrative which meadows and these republican guys are doing. have they gone over the line? i don't think we know that. they are helping the white house sort through publicly released. that's what's in news reporting from cnn. they are sorting publicly released materials. that's the case i don't see a problem at all. whether they are going over beyond characterizations i'm sure they are tempted to do that. it's fair to say the democrats all have clean hands but look at these terrible republicans over here. >> one of the things the white house and republicans have complained about is the white house doesn't have its lawyers or representatives in the room. if these people are part of the legal planning strategy, we're talking about meadows and jordon, they do have people in the room, to an extent, yes? >> i think

there's another one to "the washington post." we wouldn't be talking about vindman being told to keep his mouth shut were it not for a leak. there have been tons of leaks coming from the democrats to shape the story, to shape the narrative, which is what seems to be meadows and -- these republican guys are doing. now, have they gone over the line? i don't think we know that. the cnn reporting says they're helping the white house sort through publicly released materials. if that's the case, i don't see a problem at all. but whether they're going over beyond broad characterizations, i'm sure they're tempted to do that. are they getting away with what they can get away with? yeah. but i don't think that it's fair to say the democrats all have clean hands, but, boy, look at these terrible republicans over here. >> you know, it's interesting because one of the things that the white house and the republicans have complained about is that the white house doesn't have its lawyers or representatives in the room. >> right. >> on capitol hil

they're reported in "the new york times," "the washington post" and elsewhere. all. especially the fact that the author is anonymous, usually journalists extend confidentiality to sources when the only way they can get that information to the public is by protecting his identity. now the author has done that and says he doesn't want to make the story about himself. but you have to deliver the goods. i say this as someone who wants to know the full inner workings of the white house. i wish that there was more. what we've read does not fill in that picture. >> neera, disadvantageous or advantageous to the author or publisher, there is this side track that will be going on next week, the main track really. it will be the impeachment hearings. there will be people who were in the white house who will describe things perhaps not in as juicy a way but which confirms what people like gabe have been reporting on for the last three years. >> absolutely. i do think what is part of this book is that we will -- i'm sure this is inadvertent, but we will see in real time publi

no sweat. >>> we have breaking news tonight from "the washington post." wanted attorney general william barr to hold a press conference declaring that president trump had broken no laws in his phone call with the president of ukraine. william barr didn't do it, and "the washington post" reports that donald trump has privately complained that, quote, he wished barr would have held the news conference. joining us now is matt miller, former spokesperson for the attorney general eric holder and an msnbc contributor. matt, not surprising, it's one of those trump stories where it is both shocking and not surprising of course, of course. he asked william barr to hold a press conference when the transcript of the phone call with the president of ukraine came out and have him simply absolve donald trump of any wrongdoing. >> that's exactly wright, lawrence, it is a completely inappropriate thing for a president to ask an attorney general to do. but you could see why trump would do it and actually follow through and grant that request given that this is basically w

i think that was fine, he didn't go to the washington post, he didn't go to congress, he didn't file mplaint. now all of this comes out and the congress is saying it's impeachment, they're blowing it up, the public‘s not buying it. let me ask you how you think the president's handling this. you say you talk to him, you've obviously been talking to him as this process was initially proposed, it's been ongoing. i noticed in an interview you gave last year to the financial times, you said, "sometimes during the campaign, the kid from the mean streets of queens came out in the campaign and thought, if i'm going to survive, i've got to fight". in other words, sometimes he hits back stronger when he's criticised or attacked. do think that's what we're seeing a bit of, that character aspect of donald trump? laughs well, i'm glad you dug that quote up. i would say not sometimes, i would say he always hits back and maybe punches down, sometimes. actually, even though he grew up quite wealthy, he was in and enclave surrounded by very difficult neighbourhoods in queens in new york city. some are

i want to turn back to this is story from the "washington post." and that is the inner agency emails exposing what really appears to be a lot of justification from omb and mulvaney to withhold military aid for ukraine. given what the "post" is reporting, what questions does this raise for you? >> it raises profound constitutional questions. remember, the framers set it up so that congress would have the exclusive power to appropriate money. so we voted $391 million to support ukraine in its efforts to defend itself against russia which was engaged in active military hostilities against ukraine. the people held it up as part of this political plot to get information that i wanted and to get a statement that he wanted from president zelensky saying that the bidens were under investigation. that upsets the constitutional balance of powers and congressional control over spenkd. the spending. there is a law called impoun impoundment control act, it was adopted after watergate where nixon did something similar. the president has to come to congress if he

it's from "the washington post." reporting that lev parnas -- lev parnas is one of the indicted associates of rudy giuliani. he told people that he spoke with president trump about ukraine at a dinner last year. he reportedly told the president that the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, was unfriendly to him and his interests. according to parnas, trump immediately said she should be fired. so joining me now is the former director of national intelligence, mr. james clapper. director, thank you. tomorrow is a huge day. what do you make of the fact that for the second time -- and then we're going to talk about "the washington post" reporting. but what do you make of the second time in trump's presidency we're faced with the question did this president accept help from or shake down a foreign power for personal political gain, whether he cheated? >> well, that's -- you know, that's the issue, and i believe, as you and chris were alluding earlier, that we're going to get away from the latin expression and b

joining me for insight and analysis are eugene robinson, columnist for "the washington post," danielle pletka of the american enterprise institute. reuters white house correspondent jeff mason. and "wall street journal" columnist peggy noonan. 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 republicans were hoping for a robert mueller like disappointment, that didn't happen. indemocrats were looking for that galvanizing watergate like moment, that hasn't happened either. still, the witnesses at last week's impeachment hearing shows a president more interested in his own political fortunes and engaged in intimidation, even committing the unforced error of attacking a witness during her televised hearing. ambassador sondland may feel the need to revise his statement again. perhaps most important, last week revealed just how consumed president trump is with the hearings, despite his respeeted claims to the contrary. how much will it all matter? the

robert costa, national political reporter at the "washington post" and moderator of washington week onbs. here with me onset my colleague white house correspondent kristin welker. the president arallying republicans trying to rewrite the narrative of that fateful phone call. >> he is. he's saying stop saying that what i did is not impeachable. start saying what i did is not wrong. that's been his argument since the start. this was a perfect phone call he had with the president of ukraine on july 25th, there's nothing to see here, let's move on. what's so striking about this moment is you have some of his fellow republicans making the case, look, we don't agree with he said, at the same time we don't think it's impeachable. it's a strategy that goes back to what we saw during bill clinton's impeachment proceedings. so republicans taking a similar tack. i think it's interesting to note all of this comes against the backdrop of these public hearings set to get underway this week. you have democrats saying we want to be very focused on that phone call on the question of whether or not ther

"the washington post" clolumnis josh rogan is here. emained silent and even threatened not to sign this. why the change of heart? >> president trump signed the bill because he knew it would be a bill no matter what. if he vetoed it, it would have been overridden. that's fine. we should celebrate that he did the right thing. at the same time, he issued a statement saying he wanted chinese and hong kong leaders -- which doesn't make sense. the people of hong kong appreciate that the united states government decided to note that they are struggling for a democracy and freedom and human rights and the things that the chinese government promised them when they took over hong kong in 1997. they are literally dying in the streets to advocate for those things and if the chinese cracks down on them and kills them there will be consequences internationally. >> and i suppose it's symbolically meaningful in terms of sending the right message. one of the reasons president trump stayed quiet on the protests is because of the ongoing trade talks with

but obviously didn't get close to doing. >> according to the "washington post," the anonymous author wrote, i was wrong about the quiet resistance inside the trump administration. and unelected bureaucrats in the cabinet appointees were never going to steer donald trump the right direction in the long run or refine his malignant management style. he is who he is. this was also the central argument "new york times" op-ed that spawned this book and now the author says that assessment was wrong. what's your take-away from that? >> it is interesting. to hear a bit of a walk-back of that. that's something that a lot of, this is not a new idea that people within the white house had tried to pull back from the presidents what they would say worse instincts are. we've seen that, we've heard about gary cohn, the former nec adviser and the generals that the president employed like general mattis, who tried to rein in what they said were the president's most impulsive decisions and try to get him to see a different way. but i think the idea of there being this big resistance within the white ho

rachel maddow and "the washington post" have a look at the much anticipated book titled "a warning by anonymous." it's due november 19th and written by quote a senior official in the trump administration. the same unnamed author of that september 2018 "new york times" opinion column titled i al part of the resistance inside the trump administration. the experts offer one person's view of what it's like to be in the administration. nbc news has not seen nor been able to confirm the contents of what's being reported tonight. the excerpts describe a ka bob the authors refers to. quote, president trump should not be shocked that wary aids and cabinet members saved his presidency. my colleagues have done so many times. he should be worried. we should all be worried that these reasonable professionals are vanishing. with every dismissal or departure of a level-headed senior leader, the risks to the country grow and the president is validated by a shrinking condrey of advisors that abet or encourage his bad behavior. we're already seeing the consequences. another section of the book goes int

what's ahead the washington post warning that the u.s. republicans are wall no less with russia probably look at all the rest. that's geysers financial survival they say money the balance or. close to it is it this is the central plank supported by a government kind of problem right now so you stop to. think. patiala choose to morning donald trump's been accused in a major american newspaper of being disloyal to the united states and a damning washington post opinion piece the columnist also said it's time that the republicans were called out as russian propagandists a senior correspondent has been taking a look. we're going to go in a journey you and i a trip into another dimension a magical place written a new rated by the washington post where there are assuming the russian agents in the united states they will soon outnumber americans themselves president trump has been disloyal to the united states not only and given russia a leg up in its war against ukraine but also in broadcasting his propaganda and for that republicans are just a

i want to start off by getting your reaction to the latest report from "the washington post" showing that officials from the omb and mick mulvaney were trying to justify withholding that aid. >> well, it's more corroboration of what the hearings i think clearly established, president trump used the -- he dangled the white house meeting and withheld the aid in order to get ukraine to agree to do his dirty work on vice president biden. and everything that we've seen just corroborates what the president said in his phone call, and now it appears there's a paper trail that shows the machinations that the white house went through to try to keep that congressionally authorized aid, bipartisan vote, strong bipartisan vote, to keep that at bay so ukraine didn't get it until the president got what he wanted. >> and adam schiff over the weekend seemed to suggest that we won't be hearing from any more witnesses. does this new report give that a

carol leonnig, pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter for "the washington post." robert costa, national political reporter for "the washington post" and moderator of washington week on pbs. and shannon pettypiece, veteran journalist, senior white house reporter for nbc news digital. good evening and welcome to you all. robert costa, i'd like to begin with you and your beat, which is spending a lot of time on capitol hill. do people in congress seem to comprehend the gravity of what starts tomorrow, or is this going to be more of a rolling gravity situation, if you will? >> at the capitol today, walking around the halls of the senates by the trains over at the house of representatives, it's clear that lawmakers in both parties understand the gravity of this moment. an impeachment process. the president of the united states, his presidency on the line. the challenge for both parties is how is this going to play nationally as we go into a re-election year for president trump? democrats believe this is the critical phase, the public phase to tie all this testimony that

here are some of the details on the washington post. me republican senators and advisors are privately discussing whether to pressure gop leaders to stay a lengthy impeachment trial beginning in january, potentially keeping six contenders in washington until the eve of the iowa caucuses were longer. the conversations remain fluid. that's according to more than a dozen participants in the discussion. the deliberations come as the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell faces pressure from conservative activists to swap back as democrats -- impeachment hearings began in the house. foraised a potential hazard the six democratic senators running for president who had previously planned on the final sprint to washington before the iowa caucuses on february 3 and the new hampshire primary on february 11. there is an emergent divide among republicans over the timing. some republicans favor a lengthy trial as a means of defending president trump in creating problems for democrats. others are calling for a swift dismissal. templatecconnell's rem

i want to bring in shane harris and intelligence and national security correspondent for the washington postguy smith who advised president clinton during his impeachment in the late 12990s. shane, give us more about what the washington post is reporting. >> what we're finding from my colleagues' reporting we know when president trump made this decision in early july to freeze this aid, there was no clear rationale in place for doing so. and it looks like what the documents are telling us is this fairly frantic effort, frankly, led by the white house chief of staff mulvaney to try to come up after the fact with a legal rationale and justification for freezing the aid. it's important to emphasize the emails seam to indicate everyone felt they had a legal basis for doing so. but there was no stated rationale at the time that the decision was made. so sort of having to kind of come in and do a legal cleanup after the president froze the aid to ukraine. >> the question is first, let me ask you your reaction, and second, is this going to change anything regarding the impeachment inquiry? >> well,

and the "washington post" is saying it is kind of a little bit of favor with the president. what happens if the director, or one of the senior members of the omb actually ignores this subpoena, and does no go through. >> congress has three tools, and we have heard a lot of them. criminal contempt. civil contempt. and inherent contempt. wer theoretically they ask the sergeant of arms of congress to physically arrest the person and bring them before congress. it is not a realistic option with the president. it might be with individual members of the executive branch. but criminal contempt takes time. civil contempt takes time. criminal contempt, the crazy thing about it, the statute says that in order to enforce criminal contempt, you know who has to enforce it, the d.o.j., part of the executive branch and the d.o.j. takes the position if they don't feel like charging someone with criminal contempt they woe don't it. so congress may have all of this power to subpoena but really no functional enforcement mechanism. >> wow. >> it will land on the d.o.j.'s desk. >> it could. >> l

same thing with "the washington post." it's a phony paper. d: i'm going to go out on a him and say he wasn't happy with the coverage of the hearings. [laughter] more negative than he would like. but when he says, well, if i are a great day -- which is questionable -- and the press printed everything bad, does he want coverage that's not reflect i have of what happened in that -- reflective of what happened in that hearing room? it wasn't a great week. >> i will say in talking to various senior white house officials, they actually think that the president is leaning into? , that he feels like -- into this, that he feels hike the way these impeachment proceedings have gone, it has not actually created the kind of momentum for impeachment that could have been possible or looked like it might have been possible a few months ago and that that's a situation where, looking down the road, they see the potential for a perhaps bipartisan vote to acquit the president early next year on these grounds in the senate -- howard: bipartisan vote -- >> -- as so

not to ban the issue is political advertising social media sites are grappling with it and the washington post watches an obituary headline and the internet is not going to let the paper live it down. over the past month or so we've covered mass protest movements and the way those stories have been reported from hong kong to baghdad to beirut this week we're looking at chile and the largest demonstrations there since the end of the pinochet dictatorship almost 30 years ago the unrest was set off by a price hike on public transport but the larger context to all issues include rising inequality plus an unrepresentative political class news outlets include chile has the most concentrated media ownership in latin america there is a lot of resentment on the streets directed at t.v. channels accusations of too much airtime on looting not enough on either violations by the security forces or the underlying issues behind the civil unrest the historical backdrop is central to this story there's a deep lingering resentment of the news media which goes back to the pinochet era chileans remember that the

"the washington post" adds, quote, the interaction between eisenberg and vindman suggests there was a sense among some in the white house that trump's call with zelensky was not, as the president has repeatedly claimed, perfect, and it threatens to undercut trump's arguments that the expanding impeachment inquiry is politically driven. nearly a dozen more officials are scheduled to testify next week. that includes john eisenberg on monday along with energy secretary rick perry and acting office of management and budget director russell vought. tonight an energy department spokesperson says secretary perry will refuse to appear in a closed-door session with lawmakers, saying he will, quote, not participate in a secret star chamber inacquisition where agency counsel is forbidden to be present. they are welcome to send to the secretary's consideration an invitation to participate in an open hearing where the department's counsel can be present and the american people can witness. perry could be a key witness. he met with the president of ukraine earlier this year. nancy pelosi told bloom

"the washington post" also has an early august exchange between mick mulvaney and the acting head of the office of management and budget, russ vogt, in which mulvaney asks for an update on the justification. two administration officials say that doesn't mean that mulvaney was seeking to change that justification or that one wasn't already in place.

democrats to try to get an advantage in 2020. >> now, as for what the public thinks about all of this, there is a new "washington post"/abc news poll. it shows that 49% say the president should be impeached andpr removed from office. 47% say he should not. here for our leadoff discussion on a friday night, susan page, washington bureau chief for "usa today," franco ordonez, white house correspondent for npr, and josh gerstein. thanks to all of you for being with us.ou susan, let me start with you. we hearde from the president tonight in mississippi. staunchly red state, staunchly pro-trump state. they've got an election coming up therele next tuesday. that's ostensibly the reason he's there. i have to ask you those clips we played where he addressed the impeachment question there head-on, he demeaned the process, went afteran democrats all of the w things you've been hearing from him on twitter he said in front of that audience. was his real audience in part there republican members of congress? wasbe this an attempt to remind them that in his view, the base of the party is with him and essentially to deliver the mes

[applause and cheers] because the new york times, the washington post, and by the way, i don't know youbably read , it, we threw them out of the white house. we don't show them anymore. if somebody wants to go and find them we threw them out. ,and they came into my office, and i got to get back to this guy where is hunter? ,we had a t-shirt made. where is hunter? hunter he came out and did the , morning show. that was the last we have seen of hunter. that wasn't good. the morning of his father's very bad debate. where is hunter? before i say the final thing on hunter, and then we put him to rest for a while, we get rid of the washington post and the failing new york times, we get rid of them. we don't have them in the white house. people can go out and buy it, but we don't have it. we used to have them stacked up. i would go in and see a meeting with my people, and they are south korea, china or somebody, and i go in and going to these offices and i would see like 10 or 15 of them packed all over the place. the washington post, trying to figure out who is worse. one day it's times, one

the story was fake "washington post" con job with an anonymous source that doesn't exist. the justice department already ruled that the call was good. we don't have freedom of the press. the degenerate "washington post" made up the story about me asking bill barr to hold a news

some anonymous sources in "the washington post" tonight are playing down the upcoming report, playingown at the fisa process was totally aboveboard. i guess they are forgetting testimony from andrew mccabe when he said, no dossier, no warrant. today, president trump predicted the inspector general's findings will be historic. watch this. >> what you are going to see, i predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country, political scandal. but i guess that's the biggest. what's more important -- >> what do you mean by that? >> they are going to be things that are incredible, a fisa report that comes out. it's a story, that's what i hear. if it's a story, they are going to see something. >> jason: joining me is sara carter and the author of "witch hunt: the story of the greatest mass delusion in american legal history." from our fox news legal analyst, gregg jarrett, thank you for pointing us. i want to start with you because donald trump is on the phone, "fox & friends" for an hour. talking about this upcoming report. suddenly, less than eight hours later, magic

in this remarkable op-ed tonight in "the washington post," the

"the washington post" now reporting that a confidential white house review has uncovered hundreds of documents showing an extensive effort to come up with an after the fact justification for why president trump decided to withhold military aid to ukraine. the white house counsel's review of documents was triggered by the ongoing house impeachment inquiry. according to the "post" the documents include early email ex changes between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and budget officials after trump already ordered the hold in july. the report says white house lawyers are expressing concern that the review has turned up some unflattering exchanges and facts that could, at minimum, embarrass the president. joining me, jeremy diamond. any reaction? >> reporter: we do not have a reaction from the white house. we've reached out for comment from the press office as well as the office of management and budget. we do have a statement in this "washington post" report from a spokeswoman where she says there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to condu

chris: "the washington post" reports that a growing number of republican senators are concerned about the evidence that's come out and are suggesting perhaps they will say that, yes, the military aid was competent on ukraine -- dependent on ukraine investigating the bidens, that it was a quid pro quo, but that that is not an impeachable bl offense. would president trump accept that as a way to get out of this controversy? >> you act like someone's giving a plea bargain for a lesser offense. of what crime is he being accused, and when will he have a chance to face the judge, jury and executioner? those republican senators are broadcasting to you and the rest of the world. i'm not going to be one of the 20 republicans who goes with the democrats and removes a democratically-elected president of the united states just because the democrats -- chris: well, according to the report they're concerned that the evidence doesn't look good for the president. >> well, i think the reason you saw every single republican vote against the impeachment inquiry is because they have not seen evidence of

. >> joining us is a cybersecurity reporter for the washington >> post. reporter for the washington post. >> are we in a smart cities competition with china, and how are we doing? [laughter] >> i don't know. i think we are in a competition with ourselves. i think china has done far more investments. it is a lot easier when you have one guy making all the decisions. here, we have 50 states. we still have a lot of work to be done in terms of national infrastructure. to a certain extent, i believe we are behind in terms of the build out. do we have the know-how and ability? yes, we do. do we have the technology and the ability to roll it out? yes, we do. what we have to get is the will to do so. >> there have been a lot of stories recently about cities not being able to protect the data they already have. we had attacks in baltimore and atlanta and other places. should we be concerned about gathering more data, some of it about citizens? we have to build the capacity, because any vulnerable link in the united states is an attack on all of us, notwithstanding