garrett haake joins me now from capitol hill. also, joined by our attorney pamela. she's former veteran prosecutor and served as counsel to the house judiciary committee during proceedings against chief judge walter nixon of mississippi. pier garret garrett, let's start with you and that list. i don't know. give me the right question to ask because the question in my head is, why are all those people on the list? >> those are folks on that graphic who represent all the other topics that republicans would like to have be part of the conversation on impeachment. hunter biden and one of his business partners from burisma gets us into the issue of what donald trump was trying to get investigated in ukraine in the first place. the anonymous whistle-blower is a perfect avatar of our times. the kind of figure and anonymous quote/unquote deep stater. some unnamed person in the federal government who the president and his allies are trying to cast as out to get the president. and then two folks who represent other favorite conspiracy theories related to ukraine and the 2016

garrett haake is on capitol hill, hans nichols is at the white house, pete williams has more on what is next. let's start on the hill because it's the next big phrase of the impeachment inquiry. where do we go from here? >> reporter: the best way to think of this is that the fact finding stage is largely over. here preparing their report, a summation of everything we learned in open hearings, behind closed doors, and to the degree they've been given any documents to review, from the documents which they have reviewed. here hoping to present the report to the judiciary committee shortly after they come back from their thanksgiving break, so the first week in december. then it's up to judiciary to decide what to do with it. adam schiff explained a little bit of this in a letter he sent yesterday, saying we've gotten the facts, we've gotten the information about what we believe the president did. now it's up to the next group of people to whom they're handing off the ball to decide what to do about it. should they draft articles of impeachment? if so, how many. and how will the judiciar

garrett haake is standing by. garrett, i know you were listening in as we were listening to jim jordan. what do you make of what we heard from the republican congressman from ohio? >> reporter: we got a little preview of how the republicans will make their argument, as you started to hear jim jordan make there, that an attempted shakedown is not really a shakedown. if the ukraine didn't know at the time why the aid was being withheld and if the aid was ultimately released without an investigation being opened, that a crime could not be committed here, that if there was an attempted shakedown, it didn't come to fruition. you also heard from jordan advocate for kurt volker's testimony to take a more prominent role. republicans think that volker, through his very careful answers and demeanor not to lay blame on anyone in his testimony, will be good for them. i will put money on the table that you will hear republicans make an argument next week that volker needs to be called, that he is a witness they want to hear fro

joining me now from capitol hill, msnbc's garrett haake. garrett, i imagine we've just received this in the time that i was walking to the studio. so i don't know what, if anything, you've had a chance to look at yet. but what do we know so far about george kent? >> yeah. ali, this is becoming a regular feature here with me and you these afternoons. kent's testimony, as far as i've been able to skim through the summary here, does a couple things for democrats. kent is angry. that's clear. he talks about a smear campaign being run by corrupt ukrainians and a person who he thinks is apparently pretty knee deep in this himself, rudy giuliani. the campaign to push out ambassador yovanovitch and he is not happy about it. he also talks about his unfolding understanding of the aid for -- aid for dirt scheme, as democrats have sort of short handed it here between the president and the president of ukraine as he is learning about it in real time back in washington and talking to folks including bill taylor on the ground in ukraine. he describes the c

msnbc's garrett haake is live on capitol hill, just the third time in modern american history that a president faced public impeachment proceedings, garrett. what are lawmakers doing today to get ready for it? what can the american people expect tomorrow? >> reporter: for most of these lawmakers, this is the most consequential thing they'll be a part of in their time on capitol hill. you can imagine last-minute cramming, particularly for members of the house intel committee who will be handling this open hearing tomorrow. for everyone else, there's a focus on strategy, about getting talking points online. for democrats that's included abandoning latin here we're no longer talking about quid pro quo. they want to focus on extortion and bribery, things they think the american people can understand. bribery is in the constitution as an impeachable offense. republicans are focused on trying to narrow the scope. some show three of the four main things are related to the july 25th phone call, a phone call that neither of the two witnesses who will appear tomorrow were a party to, liss ned t

i want to bring in hans nichols at the white house and garrett haake over at capitol hill. hans, let me start with you and the new comment from the house speaker that apparently sparked the tweet from president trump. watch. >> the president could come before the committee and speak all the truth that he wants, if he wants to. >> you don't expect him to do that? >> if he wants to take the oath of office. he could do it in writing. he has every opportunity to present his case. >> hans, the president seems to be saying maybe i will and maybe i will? >> reporter: well the president is taking the opportunity and he's running with it. he's at least playing with it. about an hour ago as the president started off his morning on twitter, clearly suggested that he will be willing to appear. maybe not necessarily in person, but answer in writing to what the house committee ends up asking him. let's go ahead and put up the tweet. the president did some usual complaining and then he gets to the heart of the matter that says i like the idea and will, in order to get congress focused aga

my nbc news colleague garrett haake. i want to get an update on what's happened. today suspect one of the few days we did not have a deposition but we did hear from speaker pelosi about public hearings. she assumes they begin this month. well, it isn't this week and i know it's not thanksgiving week. so we're basically -- and it ain't gonna be next week -- so is it going to happen in two weeks? or three weeks? >> o. >> they are in a box here, chuck. the date i have circled on my calendar as the earliest possible date this could happen is a week from wednesday. that gets the house back in washington, past a fly-in day, and gives adam schiff enough time to given seven-days notice. but as you point out, they are really squeezed with timing here and unlike closed door depositions, you cannot do an impeachment hearing on a week or day when the whole house isn't here. it sort of defeats the purpose of saying we're going to bring this into the sun light but do it on a saturday morning or something like that. so you are looking at a very narrow calendar here to ghet thing

garrett haake has forgiven me and is here to give us some analysis of this.ok through these things and there is a little more meat on the bones that we didn't know about. >> yeah, that's right, i just had a chance to go through some of the summaries myself here and i will tell you some of the things that jump out to me, first that rudy giuliani was everywhere and everybody teamed to know it. they described multiple conversations, that everything had to go through rudy. on the question of the text messages that received so much attention that remember this was another ambassador that texted gordon sondland, there was a long break before he responded in between we knew that he had spoken to the president of the united states. he describes some of that conversation here siing i want no quid pro quo. i want him to do the right thing and then hung up on him as if he didn't want to get into any further instructions on that and when i look at kurt volker's testimony, first they warned giuliani early on about who was corrupt and who was not. that volker tried to get

joining me now from capitol hill, msnbc's garrett haake. garrett, before we get to knnun, there is a new letter put out by adam schiff about the road forward in the impeachment hearings. >> that's right. schiff briefing members inch am letter to all democrats in the house about the timing and the plan going forward. the news on timing, he says the committee is working long hours even as we speak to put together this report that'll go to judiciary. he says shortly after they return from their thanksgiving break. so rohopefully, that's sometimen that first week in december that we can get a look at that report and see how things arebe moving forward. he also talks about the fact that they will leave the door open for new witnesses and new evidence. but they are not going to wait around on them. similar to what he told us on "meet the press" yesterday. take a listen. >>ke there's more work to be do but at the same time, we've already accumulated quite overwhelming evidence. we view this as urgent. we have another election in which theec preside

we're going to start with msnbc's garrett haake on capitol hill who's been reporting on this all day. garrett? >> richard, rule number one of washington scandals is to follow the money. that's why democrats wanted mark sandy up here on the hill a top budget official. they hope he can show them something, some piece of evidence that no other witness could. tonight, another crack in the white house impeachment firewall, with career budget official mark sandy defying the white house, spending more than five hours behind closed doors with house investigators. >> we want to know exactly how the president translated his political objective to shake down the ukrainian government for the favors he wanted, translated into the budget process. >> reporter: sandy on the hill to offer insight into the decision to delay military aid to ukraine. aid that included weapons like this, anti-armor systems and mor tars, and u.s. military trainers which were eventually delivered but democrats allege the $400 million of military aid was held up by the president who tried to use it as leverage to pressure uk

>> i believe we are looking for our own garrett haake. garrett, are you hearing us yet? garrett? >> reporter: hey, i'm with you, nicole. hello. >> garrett, what was the -- go ahead. >> reporter: well, a couple things from the room that i don't know how well they carried on tv. the first is yovanovitch is such a soft speaker, it really demands the attention of all these lawmakers. they handed out her opening statement on paper before hand and you had folks pouring over it as she was speaking and eventually having to lean in to everything she was saying, just to hear her. so she commanded the room in a different way than bill taylor did on wednesday, just by requiring lawmakers to pay such close attention. and then i imagine this was probably more palpable on television, the frustration of republicans at the way that adam schiff controlled that hearing. he was locking down the room any time they tried to raise a point of order. and in fact, there was -- by calling the recess here exactly when they did, the break in this hearing, republicans now won't even get a crack at yovanovitch

garrett haake, garrett thank you very much. for more, i am joined here in new york by msnbc political analyst and new york times political reporter nick. msnbc political analyst and former clinton campaign advisor zerlina maxwell. guys, there is so much happening today. we are still waiting on this ruling with don mcgahn. whether or not he's going to be compelled to testify. still, if that does happen, the white house is expected to appeal that to the supreme court. the democrats say they don't want to play this waiting game and they got to move forward. that they got to do it now. is it a risk? >> well, it's an important test of the claim of immunity that the white house has been trying to exercise. and it's amazing that this case dates back to the mueller probe. still litigating which actually gives you a sense of why democrats aren't going to wait for it. this has been percolating for months and months. but i would say in today's news, the fact that someone has -- the tires of rudy giuliani's consulting business should be ca

let's go right to washington where we find msnbc's garrett haake and msnbc white house correspondent kelly o'donnell is live on the north lawn. garrett, this is where the rubber meets the road. for democrats, more closed door testimony next week. how are they prepping to take this fight public? >> nancy pelosi has said all along you're not going to impeach and remove a president if it's not a bipartisan effort. democrats have to start convincing some of these republicans very much in their silos, as much as democrats have been, this is an impeachable offense and requires removal of the president. that's the bottom line. next week we'll have more closed-door depositions or at least i should say there are more schedule, quite a lot of them. it's unclear if these folks will show up. there's a number of current white house officials, other folks who have dodged other opportunities to appear until they are subpoenaed. john bolton has made it clear he would need a subpoena at least to come. the action might be based in the districts next week. remember, the house is out next week. folks wil

let's get right to garrett haake on capitol hill with the latest. and, garrett, let's start with the breaking news and the transcripts and what we've learned from it. what do you got? >> well, richard, the transcripts are fascinating. they talk about two different people who were on that july 25th phone call who had two different reactions to it. jennifer williams, who you mentioned, who was a foreign policy aide to vice president mike pence. thought the call sounded inappropriate. but tim morrison, the other official who listened to that call, a senior director the national security council said he didn't think there was anything wrong with the phone call. they also disagree on whether the transcript or the memo put out by the white house purporting to be a transcript is indeed complete and accurate. morrison says it is. williams says it is not. so it will be very interesting to watch the two give their testimony side by side later in the week in public. morrison also has a couple other interesting nuggets in his deposition. he talks about gordon so

to answer that question, but first, let's introduce our team of reporters, msnbc correspondent garrett haake. "the new york times" chief correspondent and msnbc political analyst peter baker and correspond doze za law professor and federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york jessica roth. everybody, welcome. garrett, over the weekend, adam schiff said he doesn't think they need anybody else. let's listen to him on "meet the press." >> there's more work to be done but at the same time, we've about calculated quite overwhelming evidence that the president once again sought foreinterference in the election. there are still other documents, other evidence that we're wanting to obtain but we're not willing to go months and months and months of rope-a-dope in the court that the administration would love us to do. >> is everybody behind the decision in the house caucus to move forward? >> probably not everybody. but it is the move that they've decided on from the top down here. the hope among democrats they can do two things at once. they can move the process along. staff workers are w

start with garrett haake on capitol hill. so garrett, jennifer williams is the third person testifying who was listening in on that july 25th call between presidents trump and zelensky. as democrats methodically build this case, how does she fit in and what can we expect moving forward as democrats get ready to take this public? >> williams is interesting for two reasons. first, because she was on that call. she can provide another voice, another perspective about what she heard and what her reactions were to it. secondly, because she is the first person in mike pence's orbit she might be able to provide information about what pence knew about the holdup of military aid. one of the things we learned in the change of gordon sondland's testimony it was on the sidelines between pence and ukraine officials the ukrainians were informed about the conditions about the aid could be released. williams, technically a state department employee but detailed to the vice president's office, could provide some information about that. she is

we do not know whether he would accept. >> garrett haake on capitol hill.nk you very much. >>> i'm joined by madelyn dean of pennsylvania who is a member of the house judiciary committee. congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. have you been given assurances that the intel committee report will be released to the public before house judiciary holds its hearing? >> i don't know the timing of the report. that is exactly what we're waiting on, the report from the intelligence committee. you saw the process was laid out by house resolution 660, reaffirmed and repeated today by jerry nadler in a letter to the president. so i don't know the exact timing. we look forward to getting that whole report. remember, we had two important weeks of open testimony, public testimony by patriots, courageous people who came forward and told us of the irregular nature of the back channel dealings that the president and giuliani and mr. sondland and others were involved in to try to bribe the ukrainian president into coming up with a false investigation of a political

we're joined by nbc's garrett haake live for us on capitol hill. arrett, what is the plan for this afternoon and what do the democrats think they gained from these witnesses, and what if any cautions will the republicans take? >> reporter: nicolle, democrats feel like there's more to be gained from fiona hill and her expertise particularly on the questions of russian interference. i think they're going to want and use her as a proxy for john bolton in a number of ways about what his view was of this entire ukraine scandal. it's increasingly clear to me at least from my conversations with democrats on the committee, they have no interest in waiting on john bolton. here is my conversation with jackie speier from earlier. >> do you think this is the last public hearing, then? >> i'm not sure. we're going to meet as a committee after this. but at this point, we don't have any others scheduled. >> we have put together a body of work that can be now transferred to the judiciary committee for them to review. and as they determine whether or not to move for

first to capitol hill and garrett haake. garrett, set the stakes for us. >> reporter: well, brian, at the end of this line behind me is longworth room 1100, the ways and means committee room. it speaks to how unusual this whole situation is, that the intel committee, which is driving the bus on these hearings, doesn't even have its own committee room, certainly not something large enough to hold the witnesses, the media, the crush of people who have shown up today to be part of this historic moment. and as you laid out, democrats hope that these two witnesses here today can tell a story, can craft together a narrative with bill taylor having been on the ground in ukraine since the summer. did his discoveries in real-time about what was going on there, what rudy giuliani and what the president were up to. george kent back in washington buttressing his account. democrats learned the hard way from the mueller report and hearings that americans aren't going to sit down and read a 400-page report. they need to be presented with a

garrett haake, you as well. joining me now, msnbc contributor and former florida congressman david jolly, and joel payne, a former member of hillary clinton's 2016 campaign. david, i know you're a former republican, but you're going to get a new republican constituent, a voter in florida, key swing state, mar-a-lago, palm beach county. >> i wish new york would have found a way to keep him, andrea. we invite everybody to florida but this is one we may have taken a pass on if we had had a vote. >> we'll talk more about that later in the show but i couldn't resist asking you since you're mr. florida there. let's talk about the impeachment hearing and the fact that not a single republican went over. and you think back to the watergate hearings and also to the clinton impeachment hearings where 31, i think, democrats voted against bill clinton on the house floor. and only -- there were only four people voting with richard nixon. so all the rest of the republicans in 1974 voted against richard nixon. memorably, there

garrett haake, thank you. hans nichols at the white house, thank you as well. >> thanks, craig. >>> brett bruin, the director of global engagement in the obama administration, former diplomat himself, has worked with many of the diplomats that have spoken to congress so far as part of the impeachment probe. brett, thank you so much for your time. let's start with jennifer williams here, aide to vice president mike pence. she's testifying tomorrow. president trump lashed out against her in part telling skren fer williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the presidential call and see the just-released statement from ukraine. then she should meet with the ever never-trumpers, who i don't know and mostly never even heard of, and work out a better presidential attack! you work closely with jennifer williams, as i understand it. is there any truth to her being a so-called never-trumper? >> there isn't. in fact, she worked on the bush/cheney campaign before joining the service for former dhs secretary un

joining me now from capitol hill is garrett haake. also with us, former u.s. ambassador to russia, michael mcfaul, an msnbc international affairs analyst. good to see you guys. garrett, what do we know so far about the judiciary committee's hearing scheduled for december 4th? >> i'm told that this hearing is something we should look at as a 30,000 foot view on impeachment. the judiciary committee membership hope that they will have intel's report on everything that we know about this ukraine scandal by then, but even if they don't, this hearing will be to set the table. what is a high crime and misdemeanor. what is an impeachable offense. and perhaps, if they have the report by then, some answering of the questions of, does what is laid out in this report rise to that standard? but this is judiciary committee essentially setting the table for what could be a series of hearings on the ukraine issue itself, starting by answering that fundamental question, is what is an impeachab ablable of for the president of the united states. we'll start to see that work begin

down in d.c., joining me now msnbc's garrett haake on capitol hill. nbc's geoff bennett is at the house. and mr. haake i'll start with you, it is going to be a very busy week there. one question, one of many questions, i should say, that still lingers, perhaps the biggest right now, will's former national security adviser john bolton testify, what do we know about that? >> it's looking less and less likely that john bolton will testify despite his attorney leaving bread crumbs suggesting he's got more knowledge about specific meetings and conversations about ukraine. democrats want that knowledge but they don't want to wait for it. bolton has made it clear he went testify without a subpoena and he won't testify until this court case in d.c. circuit court is settled involving a former deputy of his, raising constitutional questions about whether or not he could be compelled to do so. that won't happen until mid-december at the soonest. that does not work with democrats' timelines, they are prepared to move on without him and we are relying on testimony

garrett haake has more from capitol hill.wondering what the reaction has been from lawmakers, and in particular republicans, to the news that sondland has now amended and changed his testimony? >> reporter: republican reaction has essentially boiled down to gordon who? it's been fascinating to match republicans dismiss someone who had previously been thought of as an ally, remember a top trump donor. i just walked over here from a gaggle with lindsay graham who told me and other reporters, he's not even going to read these transcripts. he thinks the whole process is a joke and he's trying to write off the whole thing. but other republicans on the house side, those who have been reading the transcripts or been involved, are saying don't focus on sondland, focus on curt volker, whose testimony they think was much more favorable to the president. here was jim jordan a short time ago. >> you all want to make a big deal out of mr. sondland's presumption that he had in his statement yesterday, but mrmr. mr. volker has a definitive

. >> garrett haake is on capitol hill. interesting they don't foreclose on the possibility. what we've heard from democrats is they're not going to let what they describe as white house stonewalling with some of these witnesses stop them from moving forward. >> reporter: that's right. and a nightmare scenario for democrats is to get caught in a back and forth in the court system that might hold up testimony, hold up the impeachment process for weeks or months. they want to keep moving ahead as quickly as possible. but as we learned over the last two weeks, there is so much new evidence still coming forward, that's part of the reason democrats don't want to say absolutely not. but even as we're on what is largely a holiday week for many members back home in their districts, staff are still here working trying to put together a report, a combination of everything we have seen in the public hearings, the private depositions. there's actually two depositions still withstanding that we've not seen the transcripts from, which we could see as early as today. the staff members are s

joining me msnbc correspondent garrett haake, bureau chief and msnbc political analyst phil rucker and "washington post" white house correspondent anne gearan along with former deputy assistant secretary of state joe reuben. i want to go back to my email and get your take on what we just saw, that there was a new sworn statement that was given to congress this week by gordon sondland saying he now remembers telling a top aide to the president of ukraine that ukraine would not get its military assistance until it committed to the investigations. garrett? >> chris, sure, i'll take that. gordon sondland has been an interesting figure in all of this. he was someone whose testimony we know had contradicted that of several other witnesses. reading the transcripts here, his memory appears to get weaker and weaker as we get closer to the present day. now an official familiar with his testimony tells us that he did come back after reading the publicly released opening statements of several other witnesses and amend his testimony in one crucial way. he says he now remembers a discussion with a t

. >> i'm joined now by my colleagues kelly o'donnell at the white house and garrett haake on capitol hill. also with us, nbc analyst and former u.s. ambassador michael mcfaul. kelly, i want to start with you at the white house. first, let me do the president's tweets here so everybody knows what we're referring to. this is what he did this morning. everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad he tweets. she started off in somalia. how did that go? then fast forward to ukraine where they knew the ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her. quick fact check aside, that's not true. it's the president who brought her up. they call it serving at the pleasure of the president. the u.s. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy much different than preceding administrations. it is called quite simply america first. with all that, however, i have done far more for ukraine o. the white house, do they at all accept the fact that this tweet ended up backfiring on them today on capitol hill? >> well, not publicly. but certainly, it has changed the dynamic today because the argument r

from the president and what he told ukrainians they had to do to get the military aid released >> garrett haake at the capitol, thank you. >>> the white house on defense after the president's edition is to clear three service members facing high crimes in the military justice system a rare move reportedly against the wishes of the pentagon mike viqueira has the details. >> here is clint. >> tonight former lieutenant clint lorens reunited with his family after six years in military prison. >> i want to say thank you, president trump. >> the white house released the emotional video after president trump granted lorens a full pardon he was serving a 19-year sentence for murdering to you tw afghan civilians while deployed in 2012. the president clearing two others also. according to "the washington post" and "the new york times," the moods are controversial, defying the wishes of senior military leaders who argue the pardons undermine the military code of justice. but in a statement the pentagon says the president had the authority to weigh in on matters of this nature mr. trump also restoring the

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

let me bring in garrett haake right now. also here, peter baker, also an msnbc contributor. garrett, let me start with you. obviously, we got news during the hearing and during the hearing we found we got a new deposition scheduled. we've got -- we now know more about what to expect next week. how do democrats feel today? and how do the republicans feel? >> democrats i spoke to afterwards feel good about today but caution that this is a long process. they think they have to keep people invested and they have to keep people listening. a lot of the arguments presented by republicans today, for example, that some of this information that ambassador taylor was talking about was second or third-hand, they think they can knock down as they go further and further along. for example, gordon sondland, who will appear next wednesday in an open hearing is the direct connection to president trump. also, the questions about when ukrainians knew that the aid was being held up. that's something that another witness, ms. cooper, could speak to when she has her open hearing also next week. an

garrett haake on capitol hill, peter alexander at the white house. garrett, start with you here. let's talk about what's next and let's talk about what we are watching today. hour. . on friday we'll see former ambassador marie yovanovitch appear. our next public hearing. she's particularly important to democrats because she allows them to expand the timeline here. if you watched the hearings yesterday, you heard republicans focusing very tightly on that july 25th phone call between the president of the united states and the president of ukraine. democrats have argued all along that the scheme if you will in ukraine extended far beyond that and started earlier. you will hear that from marie yovanovitch on friday. as we look ahead, the big bombshell from yesterday was bill taylor adding to his testimony, talking about this conversation between gordon sondland and the president that was overheard by one of his staffers. that has also created this new debate here and i think it's going to be critical going forward about how close president trump was to all of this operation here. we

garrett haake is at capitol hill and jeff bennett is at the white house. so laura cooper's testimony has just been released, garrett. she's the official that was in charge of, i guess, the national security funding with ukraine. what did we learn from her testimony that we had not known before now? >> cooper describes being essentially dumb founded when she finds out that this aid to ukraine is being held up and not given any explanation why. only that the chief of staff's office has ordered that the aid not be released. over time, then, she describes discussions with dod and this interagency process of the u.s. government to figure out why this happened and whether they can reverse-engineer a way somehow that it's legal. they struggle to come up with what possible reasoning there could be. checking off, you know, that ukraine had met these other anti-corruption goals that had been set for it. that indeed this was money legally mandated by congress to go there. finally, she describes a couple of conversations with kurt volker, the special envoy to ukraine,

joining me now from the white house is nbc's hans nichols, and from capitol hill, msnbc's garrett haake. gentlemen, good morning to both of you. hans, let's start with you, because the president has spoken about this process in an interview he just gave to fox news. >> reporter: and spoke at length. he spent almost an hour with fox this morning. and what they're doing is previewing, ali, a new argument, and it's the idea that they actually welcome a senate trial. you heard that from the president. you heard it most recently from the former attorney general in florida. here's the tension in that argument, though, and that is, on the one hand, they're saying this entire process was illegitima illegitimate, using words like coup, and at the same time, they're claiming that this illegitimate process could ultimately lead them to a senate trial where the facts will vindicate them. so, listen to how the president continued to pile on, on the process. at the same time, they're claiming ultimately they're going to like the outcome. >> this was an overthrow attempt at the presidency. they tried

joining me now, msnbc correspondent garrett haake on capitol hill, nbc news white house correspondent hallie jackson at the white house. so let me start with you, garrett. what's amazing to me is that we had some hints that gordon sondland wanted to change his testimony almost as soon as bill taylor had testified. we had gotten reports he was reviewing his testimony. what i found interesting is that he apparently made all of these changes effective yesterday, not sooner. do we have more details on how all this came about? >> well, he didn't have a ton of time. we know sondland has back here last week reviewing his testimony and the testimony of morrison was just towards the ending of last week. so, yes, the letter from his attorney was dated yesterday. it got to the committee yesterday. adam schiff announced yesterday that sondland and kurt volker's testimonies would be coming out today. it's not clear to me what came first, the schiff notice that, hey, this is coming out tomorrow or the attorney's letter. i've reached out to the attorney and the committee and neither side will commen

hallie jackson at the white house and garrett haake for us on capitol hill. i want to bring in attorney michael conway who served as -- michael, the -- there's a push by republicans to delegitimize the inquiry generally. but the fact is now that testimony, transcripts of the testimony, that the republicans said was secret testimony is coming out. there's a move to sort of counter the public consumption of it. at some point, what has to happen in order to take all this information from testimony, combine it with the public testimony that we're going to hear, and lead to impeachment? >> well, i think the key thing that the committee did today was they not only released the testimony, they released excerpts. sort of highlights of the testimony, which will be much more accessible to the members of public and members of congress as to what these two witnesses testified to. that's important. but what's more important is going to be the public hearings that adam schiff has promised and i imagine that the same testimony that's highlighted that's been begin under oath

our own garrett haake has been talking to members all day long. other than cargo loading and hydrating and running to the bathroom, what's going on up there? >> they've just finished up the vote series now so we'll be resuming for the second hearing tonight, which should be much shorter than the first. you're not going to see one of those long extended staff questions. they're going to get right into the member questions. and i want to -- >> garrett, that's me hugging you through the microphone. thank god. >> well, i think we're all willing to take that here after a 13-hour or so day here yesterday. i just want to build on something that peter was saying. i think democratic members in particular were very satisfied that gordon sondland did link all of this back to the president. that the idea that orders from giuliani or conversations with giuliani were the same as orders from the president. they felt like that really got through. i want to play for you a brief bit of my conversation with jackie speier during the break. >> there is no question in

hans nichols is at the white house, garrett haake is on capitol hill. hans, let me start with you because, again, somebody who said he maybe would be open to testifying, who still hasn't done so, now is coming out on fox answering questions. and boy, did he have plenty to say, including spreading a conspiracy theory that has been debunked repeatedly over the last two weeks. >> hallie, when you talk to white house officials, they will say that the testimony last week was about a potential quid pro quo. it wasn't about the 2016's origins. so even if the president does say untrues or blunder on this, that's not directly what white house officials think that this impeachment inquiry is going to be about. let's go ahead and listen to the claim, this false claim the president made that was refuted by his own former russia adviser. >> 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 did that? are you sure they gave it to ukraine? >> well, that's what the word is. that

garrett haake on capitol hill for us. all right. coming up.ing white house chief of staff mick mulvaney wants to join a lawsuit that could determine whether senior administration officials have to testify in the impeachment inquiry. but he may not be welcome as a party to that suit. we'll explain next. >>> but first, just days after announcing his run for his old u.s. senate seat in alabama, former attorney general jeff sessions talked about the need for tougher immigration laws in an interview with the nbc affiliate in birmingham. >> we have got to help the border patrol and the i.c.e. officers with some legislative fixes to close loopholes. oh, we're going to do something. but when the chips come down, congress has failed to deliver. it's unbelievable and we need to take the case to the american people and say, do you believe in open borders? this lawlessness we have now. if -- if you don't, then you need to stay on your congressmen and your senator to make sure we pass some laws to close those loopholes. e those loopholes. great riches will

nbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill following this for us. another busy day there. who exactly is mark sandy and why is his testimony considered to be so key right now? >> reporter: kendis, he's a career official at the budget office. the way one democrat explained, nos providing sexy testimony but the person that can take a political plot by donald trump to withhold this money from ukraine and translate it through the bureaucracy in actual action. someone whose desk the paperwork would have had to pass to send the $400 million, a portion of it to ukraine or stop it. explaining the government machinery behind the scenes that put this plot into action. it speaks to the importance we're standing here on a saturday and that now having already started the public phase of the inquire, a step back making sure they get information from all potential witnesses behind closed doors first. >> sandy is testifying after receiving a subpoena. right? from congress? >> reporter: this has become commonplace here even for witnesses who probably would have come without them, but, yes.

nbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill. nbc's kelly o'donnell is at the white house. with a welcome to you both. first, let's go to you, garrett. is there any word on the deposition yet? and if not, what are the expectations from mark sandy? >> reporter: well, sandy just got under way about 10:00 this morning. he's expected to go late into the afternoon. we have not heard a word out of him. and in fact, we were told by his attorney that he did not prepare an opening statement. so, it may be a little while before we get into the meat of what sandy is able to tell investigators, but we know why they want him here. you know, it's washington scandal 101 to try to follow the money. and sandy is the first witness who could potentially let democrats do that. he is a top official at the office of management and budget. it would be across his desk that the paperwork would have to move to get that military aid to ukraine or to hold it up, and he represents the first person from that office who has agreed to come testify. he's here pursuant to a subpoena. several other officials

i want to start with garrett haake on the hill, 13 people have already testified. there is still more to go, what do we know about many week. >> i would not be surprised if 13 ends up close to the final number. two we learned have subpoenas overnight, but won't be showing up. most of the witnesses here are folks on the national security council, very close to the president himself and potentially folks over whom privilege might be exerted. on wednesday a couple witnesses who democrats have been trying to get for quite some time, and wednesday and thursday you have rick perry and john bolton. the big fish here. household names to anyone that follows politics, and someone that systems would like to see down the road. bolton's attorney says if he gets subpoenaed he might show up. so a frustrating week for democrats as they prepare to turn the page on this inquiry. we were hold that we will see transcripts as soon as early this week from the 100 plus hours, and as i look at the calendar i'm keeping an eye on next wednesday when congress is back in session and they have

garrett haake is on capitol hill, hans nichols is at the white house, pete williams has more on what let's start on the hill because it's the next big phrase of the impeachment inquiry. where do we go from here? >> reporter: the best way to think of this is that the fact finding stage i

i want to bring in hans nichols and garrett haake. tell me about the strategy to release these transcripts. there has been no sign of him mean guidance yet from any committees as to whether or not he will show. if you look at the schedule for the rest of the week, mr. hale tomorrow, he was mentioned in mike mckinley's deposition. he might appear. we have seen more independence from state department employees. i think the rest of the week is likely to be a wash. in the public we're learning quite a bit more information. today's depositions should be fascinating, kirk volker is someone they have been calling for and they think it could be exculpatory for president trump. perhaps the most positive toward the president of any of them. and gordon sondland is a mystery. his testimony is in conflict. he is a top trump donor and he gave testimony from his opening statement that was very fav favortory to himself. so those depositions today will be very interesting in this inquiry. >> we heard huge come plaplaintm the white house saying we don'

i want to start with garrett haake on capitol hill, and geoff bennett at the white house, and pete williamsis covering a court hearing today that could affect all of the impeachment proceedings. garrett, let me start with you and set the scene. i know that it is a federal holiday, but members of congress are getting ready for a big week and we may see some new transcripts today, too. >> reporter: that's right. democrats have spent the last couple of days trying to burnish the resumes of the star witnesses. they want to talk up these are career diplomats, folks who have spent their lives in service of this country and they should be believed when they show up for the first hearing on wednesday and friday, and describe the

up with me garrett haake, joel payne, joe wine banks, author of watergate girl.n is peter baker, chi. let's start with the testimony on thursday. still an open question. so much of this testimony is. you have written about this, reported on this. how seismic that testimony might be should it happen. . >> well, right. should happen is the big question. the first question is whether or not he gets subpoenaed. if he gets subpoenaed, as the lawyer has said, the lawyer will presumably followed the same tact they have taken with kupperman. hey, the white house says don't talk. congress says talk. you as a judge should tell me which i'm supposed to do. if you were actually to get in front of investigators, there's a lot of things to ask about. ask about the july 10th meeting when he apparently grew quite upset to gordon sondland about leaking investigations to benefit the white house. he told his aid -- he said i don't want to be part of any drug deal by mulvaney, sondland. they want to ask about his opposition to the july 25th phone call that took place between preside

garrett haake is on capitol hill.maker who has a hand in drafting articles of impeachment. but first, the moment that contentious committee hearing was gaveled to a close will go down in history for for the fireworks on the dias but for the way the american people hermded the career of a public servant, 33 years who years who's been with the state department who sat for five hours and delivered her testimony. here was that moment on capitol hill. [ cheers and applause ] d. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ for your worst sore throat pain try vicks vapocool drops. it's not candy, it's powerful relief. ahhhhhh! vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. high protein. low sugar. tastes great! high protein. low sugar. so good! high protein. low sugar. mmmm, birthday cake! pure protein bars. try lemon cake. pure protein bars. is your business still settling for slow internet? well time is money. switch to comcast business now and get a great deal when you get fast, relia

joining us is nbc's garrett haake covering the hearings from day juan. garrett what is it the about the proposition of president trump testifying? i think we should operate under the assumption it's not real. it's extraordinarily unluckily to have the president of the united states appear before any of these companies exploring impeachment. the possibility that he might submit written answers is slightly less unlikely because it would take too long. democrat the s want to keep it moving. they don't want to get the back and forth in much the same way this got drag out during the rrm rrm a robert mueller investigation. it would undercut one of the president's talking points as they have said the impeachment inquiry is unworthiy, it's a sham. the president choosing to participate in it that way elevates these proceedings substantially. i think we should operate under the assumption it will not happen. >> okay. seeing that's in the believe it when i see it category, let's talk about who will be testifying? who's most important? >> no short avenue of big witne

joining us now is garrett haake. how does vice president pence factor into this? >> she is the third person revealed on this call. they want to layer on information that confirms what they heard before. williams can do that about the call. she can also tell us what, if anything, vice president pence knew about that call and knew about the policy as it is separate from national policy on ukraine between the time of that call and his meeting with zelensky in poland. we learned it was on the sidelines of that meeting that he told ukrainians why this aide was being held up. williams might be able to provide those answers. >> all right, a number of other -- let's talk about john bolten f bolton for a second. obviously he didn't show up, what do we know about bolton appearing and what do democrats hope to get if they get a chance to talk to john bolton. >> there has been a ton of back and forth about how about under what conditions he will appear, but it sounds like regardless of any other factors, he will be waiting to see the outcome of this court case that may not be

i want to start with garrett haake on capitol hill, and geoff bennett at the white house, and pete williams who is covering a court hearing today that could affect all of the impeachment proceedings. garrett, let me start with you and set the scene. i know that it is a federal holiday, but members of congress are getting ready for a big week and we may see some new transcripts today, too. >> reporter: that's right. democrats have spent the last couple of days trying to burnish the resumes of the star witnesses. they want to talk up these are career diplomats, folks who have spent their lives in service of this country and they should be believed when they show up for the first hearing on wednesday and friday, and describe the corruption they saw going on around them. republicans will try to poke holes in the argument. we've been talking about how none of these three witnesses had any interaction with the president, mick mulvaney or rudy giuliani. that's sort of how the arguments will be shaping up. but the other big talking point among democrats is how they want to sharpen their language ab

let's first go though to capitol hill where garrett haake is standing by. rrett, these transcripts, i wish they came out more in the 12 to 2 range, not in the 2 to 4 range. i am going to need a new prescription at the end of this. but what's amazing, what is sort of piercing in this testimony, and i think what distinguishes it even from the others is mr. kent almost sounds like the conscience of the state department. he articulates in his testimony the historical role that the united states under democratic and republican presidents has played in bolstering not just militarily these former soviet states but in helping them stand up a rule of law. it's startling to me to read his reaction and his sort of real explanation that it was our country's president assaulting the rule of law. >> reporter: it's really interesting. it's clear why democrats are putting him together with bill taylor in that first open hearing on wednesday. these two are obviously ideological allies. you've got a pair of old cold warrors here now invested in building up these post-soviet s