mulvaney: yes. paul: and that has not happened. mr. mulvaney: portions of it have. if you look -- if you drill down to the numbers, again, it has been years since i look at this. almost all of the deficits attributed to the tax deal is related to the childcare tax credit. the corporate tax cut actually did exactly what we said that it would do, generated a fair amount of revenue. very pleased with the result. no complacent about the amount of growth. look, there are bunch republicans walking around right now in this town saying deficits don't matter, and they are pointing to that. and honestly i don't know what , to tell them before. i've fought that for a long time. i think they should matter. but they haven't. i wish we weren't borrowing as much as we are, but until there is a change in the center of gravity of both parties you are on the hill you are unlikely to , get it. paul: and a deficit contributing to an ever-growing national debt. mr. mulvaney: yes. paul: before we go to questions, one last one for you. we just talked about things you will be dealing with

mulvaney: here is what happened. the years that bothered me the most is the budget years of 2017 is when, because that the republicans held the house, the senate and the white house. the debt was way too big then. mullaney, you are the budget director. how could you allow it to happen? what's the president's budget? the president, if were in charge this is what the spending would look like. that budget had to medically smaller deficits than on there, that exposes her that even one republicans are in charge of the house some republicans like spending money as much as democrats. >> how much does that expose the tax cut that you gave companies? mr. mulvaney: i'm not concerned about that at all. people say, you know, the tax cuts -- it's not. >> loss of revenues. mr. mulvaney: it's not. the has been a year since i have been out of the office. i am going to do this by memory. fiscal year, not the one that ended in september was one of the most -- our service it was $800 billion. almost half of that was, over half was in m

mulvaney: portions of it have. i think if you drill down to the numbers, it's been a year since i've looked at this, almost all of the deficit that's attributable to the tax deal is related to the earned income -- the child care tax credit. that the corporate tax cut actually did exactly what we said it would do, generated a fair amount of revenue. so very pleased with the results of that. certainly we have no complaints about the amount of growth that we have. but the deficits are rough. there's no question. there's a bunch of republicans who are walking around right now in this town saying deficits don't matter and they're pointing to that and i don't know what -- know what to tell them anymore i fought that for a long time. i think they're supposed to matter. they should matter. but they haven't and i wish we weren't borrowing as much as we are. but until there's a change in the center of gravity of both parties on the hill, you're unlikely to get a change. paul: before we go to question, one last one for you. w

mulvaney needs to be under oath.t's why the pressure on the republican center is going to be enormous. it may be mr. blair completely exonerates the president. well, let's clear his good name and let's get mr. blair up there to clear the good name of our fine unimpeachable president. >> carrie, one of the things i am sure about is that it is really a good idea to pay your lawyer? your lawyer then is working for you and allegedly had your best interests, if you are not paying your lawyer but your deal is you allow your lawyer to make all sorts of side deals with whoever they happen to be able to bring into their net because of their contact with us, that leaves a whole lot of room for shenanigans is as stupid word to go on. and striking, you know, security deals with official in ukraine and turkey and trying to lobby the president and clients he has and who knows, and venezuela and trying set out security arrangement for the new regime and supply and surveillance equipment to the army. none of that is a good idea if t

mark esper and as for mulvaney,

mulvaney stated the server was part of why we held up the money. after a reporter attempted to clarify this explicit acknowledgement of a quid pro quo mr. mulvaney replied, "we do that all the time with foreign policy"'s he added "i have news for everybody. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy." mick mulvaney probably not the favorite person there at the white house right now, gloria. how important is this, really, do you think, to the case democrats are making now? >> i think it's a very important piece of it. i think mulvaney came out and said publicly what others have been denying. although i will point out the president, and it's in this report, on october 3rd, the president was asked what he'd hoped zelensky would do following their july 25th phone call and the president said, well, i would think if they were honest about it they'd start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. so even though the president is reportedly upset at mulvaney, he said very much the same thing. >> right. >>

mark esper and as for mulvaney, and pompeo. he facilitated the president's wishes. quoting now from the times, the aide, robert b. blaire, replied that it would be possible but not pretty. expect congress to become unhinged if the white house tried to countermand spending passed by the house and senate. he wrote in a previously undisclosed email. and he wrote, it might further fuel the narrative that mr. trump was pro russia. according to "the times" those carrying out the president's orders to freeze the aid for the most part did not know about the pressure campaign on ukraine's president. however, his testimony in the house shows mick mulvaney could be the exception which is why senate democrats want to hear from him and three others, all four of whom the president has blocked from testifying. in a moment one of "the times" reporters. first boris sanchez outside of mar-a-lago. we know the president has been working on any kind of strategy for the senate trial since he's been down in mar-a-lago? >> reporter: anderson, it appears that president trump has been trying

it's why mulvaney and the other aides need to be under oath.why the pressure on republican senators is going to be enormous to simply get these people and get the facts. it may be alice is right and that mr. blair completely exonerates the name of our president. then let's get him up there and clear the fine name of our president. >> one thing, it's really a good idea to pay your lawyer and so your lawyer is working for you are. if you're not paying your lawyer burr you allow your lawyer to make all sorts of side deals with whoever they hp to bring into their net because of contact with you, that leaves a whole lot of room for shenanigans, to use a stupid word, to go on. using giuliani and security deals with officials in ukraine and turkey and lobbying the president for klein sense, trying to get maduro out of venezuela la and supply surveillance equipment to the army. none of that is a good idea if that's your enjoy. >> well, it's also not the nature of pro bono lawyering. there's all sorts of wonderful lawyering that goes on that is pro bono

mark esper, mick mulvaney, john bolton some of the names that came out of this report. you say willful ignorance of mick mulvaney. >> yes. >> i want to talk more saying he would actually leave the room during conversations between the president and former mayor rudy giuliani because of what he says was attorney/client privilege. does that add up to you? >> no, it doesn't add up to me. it sounds like a cover story. you have sondland testifying that everybody knew what was going on. and i -- it's hard to believe that mulvaney could run the three friends, if you will, the three amigos and not know everything that was going on, because one of those amigos was, who else, rudy giuliani. so when he is not in the room, i think what they're doing is trying to buy themselves deniability by cutting out rudy, because if he is the back channel that kirschner wanted in early 2016 with kislyak, this everything makes sense. whether you send him to south america, you send him to russia, you send him to ukraine, you send him to vienna, and then he comes back and delivers the goods. he's

a top adviser to white house chief of staff mick mulvaney warned mulvaney that congress will become unhinged if the money is withheld. the "times" also reports that top trump officials including former national security adviser john bolton, defense secretary mark esper, and secretary of state mike pompeo met in the oval office with the president in august in a previously undisclosed meeting. they tried to get him to release the funds, arguing it was in the country's best interest to do so, america's best interest. but the president refused, calling ukraine a corrupt country. a lot to talk about tonight with boris sanchez and phil mattingly. good evening to you. boris, i want to start with you. in this "new york times" reporting, mulvaney has been near or at the center of this saga from the beginning, but it's clear now that he was key in the operation to withhold the aid to ukraine. >> yeah, that's right, victor. he was effectively a conduit doing president trump's bidding and trying to freeze this military aid to ukraine. and in that e-mail exchange that you read a portion of when mulvaney

mick mulvaney, john bolton, robert blaire, michael duffy. house speaker pelosi has still yet to send articles of impeachment across. a federal judge dismissed a challenge by charles cupferman to a house subpoena. they will refile the subpoena. the lawsuit is unnecessary. john bolton, as you'll recall, declined to go before the house until that lawsuit was ruled on. let's get some perspective from jamie raskin. these new details from "the times" how much do they change or do they change the calculus for the democrats here? >> well, they fill in a lot of the details that were kind of abundantly directed to by ambassador sondland who said everyone was in the loop. "the new york times" report suggests everyone was in the loop. everyone understood it. "the times" report says they tried to cover their tracks and tried to displace their own responsibility onto the department of defense and other actors. but ultimately the report demonstrates that one person and one person only was at the heart of the entire scheme against zelensky and that was dona

they want mike pompeo, mick mulvaney, they want john bolton. the question though, is you have a republican-controlled senate and this is a different set of math and system that we're going to see where adam schiff can shut anything they wanted down. do you think we'll see any of these people as witnesses? >> i doubt it. i think with respect to the republicans, most republicans in the senate i think understand that those republican house witnesses, if you will, biden and biden and schiff are really irrelevant and in no ordinary trial would witnesses of such little or no relevance ever be allowed to testify and for the democrats in the senate, i think like the democrats in the house, they're comfortable with the fact that if witnesses like pompeo, mulvaney and bolton are not going to testify, they're perfectly okay with taking an adverse inference from their absence assuming that if they had anything exculpatory to offer with respect to the president that they would be there at the president's insistence, and if they're not there that means they

what is the only reason mulvaney should not testify? the only one i can imagine is they're afraid of what he might say, president trump is. >> what kind of pressure does your letter and does this request for these four witnesses, what kind of pressure does that put on republicans? >> look, i went to mitch mcconnell two weeks ago and said let's negotiate and sit down and try to come up with a fair process. mitch mcconnell did not come and call me and ask to do that. instead, he first spun out his own theory of what a trial should be and then he said, well he's going to do just what president wants. this letter is an attempt to get it back in the middle to a fair and balanced trial that's appropriate. we use the 1999 mod until a lot of ways and we're not trying to delay, not trying to bring in extraneous people. we're trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened. the house has made a very strong case. there's sort of a burden on the president to rebut that case and he's done none of that. >> do you have a meeting set up with lead

people say, mulvaney, you are the budget director, how could you allow this? >> the truth is, what is the president's budget? people say it is messaging. the message is, the president was in charge, here's what the spending would look like. that budget is dramatically smaller than on their. there..e -- it exposes that some republicans like spending as much as democrats. theow does that concern acts cut u.s.-made? made?cut you >> it is not concern me at all. -- does not concern me at all. , i thinkfiscal year 900 billionwas 800, dollars. only half of that was an mandated spending, only half in medicare. my party has done such a good job of convincing ourselves that entitlements are the problem we've ignored and we spent a bunch of money on this. the republicans on the hill spent money. keep in mind, congress spends money. they remind me, the constitution lets us spend the money. they are absolute right. -- absolutely right. it was almost as big as when democrats were in charge of the house. it is hard to get members of congress to stop spending money. when you

mick mulvaney, john bolton, and a couple officials who work in omb or for mulvaney robert blair and michaelt's significant about this request and do you think it's smart? >> certainly smart. i believe we have enough to show abuse of power just from the, you know, 17 depositions we took and the 12 public hearing witnesses we had. but if there are gaps in what we know, it's because witnesses like mick mulvaney and john bolton were told by the president to not come in. if the senate could get them and we couldn't, i think that would be dpragreat for the american pe to fill in the blanks because of the president's obstruction. >> mitch mcconnell has suggested or senate republicans have suggested maybe they don't want any witnesses. do you think democrats should be willing to strike a deal saying you give us these four witnesses, you can have the whistle-blower or hunter biden. would you make that deal? >> i think the american people want a fair trial. and hunter biden is really not relevant to what the president did. and the whistle-blower is no longer relevant in that everything he's alleged h

you might remember that this all started on thursday when trump's acting chief of staff mick mulvaneyed out of nowhere that trump had awarded a big contract to host a major international summit to himself. >> we're going to announce today that we're going to do the 46th g7 summit on june 10th through june 12th at the trump national doral facility in miami, florida there's a long list of the accommodations on site that the -- that the ballrooms, bilateral rooms, a number of rooms, the photo ops, the support hotels that are there, the proximity to cities and airports, helicopter landing zones, medical facilities, et cetera >> seth: not only did he just brazenly announce that the president would enrich himself by hosting an official event at his own golf course, but then he did an infomercial for it. [ light laughter ] there are ballrooms, medical facilities, helicopter landings. and if you book for halloween weekend, you'll even meet our creepy siblings. [ laughter and applause now mulvaney -- mulvaney and trump also insisted the event wouldn't actually benefit trump, because they would

house officials testify in the subsequent senate trial, including the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney and john bolton. senator chuck schumer making the request in writing to majority leader mitch mcconnell, and separately, blasting mcconnell for coordinating with the white house on the president's defense, calling that, i am quoting now, totally out of line. we'll talk about that and more with congresswoman debbie mccarsell. our analysts are standing by. let's get the latest on the march toward impeachment. justice correspondent jessica snyder is with us. with impeachment a foregone conclusion, attention is on the senate trial. >> democrats are attempting to draw the line, laying out what they want when impeachment moves to the senate for a likely trial in january. top democrat chuck schumer saying he wants to hear from four key witnesses that could offer firsthand insight into the delay getting military aid to ukraine. of course, in the end, it comes down to the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and what the majority of republican senators want. tonight, top senate democrat chuc

mulvaney. think that is essential because they have relevant information about the key circumstances i think a lot of americans want to know more about. one is the national security implications here and obviously the question of aid. but what the reporting today or yesterday i should say in the reporting this week about what transpired there, is indicative of the concern that was raised within the administration long before it got up to the level of pompeo and others and esper by folks who were in the national security apparatus of our government worrying about this way back in july, even before july in some circumstances, and i would urge people to read the house intelligence committee reporting, roughly pages 67 to page 80, which outlines all the concerns they had. >> as you know, that e-mail it looks like mulvaney is talking about a followup on a conversation, where does it stand, these efforts to do this? i wonder, you have announced your support for joe biden in the 2020 election. this we

a "new york times" story describ described mick mulvaney's deep involvement in the discussions of $391 million in aid and pushback on the president. quote, in late august defense secretary mark esper joined mike pompeo and john bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed oval office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in the interest of the united states. adding to the intrigue surrounding ukraine, an announcement from the state department this morning that secretary pompeo will travel to kiev on friday and meet with president zelensky. the first in-person high level meeting between a u.s. official and zelensky since president trump's bilateral discussion back in september. joining me now, aaron lipton a reporter and one of the authors of today's front page story. msnbc contributor and former republican congressman david jolly. and analyst phil rucker and from "the washington post" and also in studio john gans, former speech writer to ash carter. and welcome as we dive right into this. and

mulvaney back to his full-time job and mr. meadows over to the job. he makes little secret of savoring chief of staff. given the close relationship between the north carolinian and the president, he will not be acting anything. relationship the between mick mulvaney and the president from what you can tell? guest: it is more like a vice president of a major company with the ceo. administers a lot of things, but the president make the final decision. not be a strong chief of staff in the sense james baker was toes ronald reagan, the gold standard for chief of staff. on the other hand, the president does not have a lot of people who tell him no the way baker and panetta told their respective bosses. he is nots capable, what i would call a great chief of staff. mr. mulvaney, if you are watching, nothing personal. i still like the work you did in congress and omb. and: were reince priebus john kelly strong chief of staff? guest: they were very capable men. reince priebus had political skills that very few chiefs of staff bring to the job. general kelly is

mick mulvaney, former national security advisor john bolton and two others. the white house is dismissing schumer's request tonight with a familiar attack on democrats on what it calls "the impeachment sham." i will get reaction from chris murphy. analysts are also standing by. first to our senior international correspondent, alex. we're getting a piece of the dynamic moving from the house to the senate. >> what it looks like is still very much in the air when the ball is in mitch mcconnell's court. and chuck schumer is trying to get four senior trump officials on ukraine to testify. >> conducting an impeachment trial in the senate is enormously weighty and solemn responsibility. >> the tables are turning. while republicans for now control the senate trial, democrats today pushing their plan they hope will gain republican support. >> do they want a fair honest trial that examines all the facts or do they want a trial that doesn't let the facts come out. trials have witnesses! >> reporter: in a letter to majority leader mitch mcconnell, schumer called for subp

we don't really know what mulvaney and bolton will say.ct, i argue that mulvaney, despite his little slip of the truth earlier this year, would be totally on team trump and cover in a way that would be unprovable that he's doing that, and that's good for the president. bolton may have a book to sell, but does he really have an ax to grind. trump gave him a front row seat, a title he can earn off for years, and he may not know anything. second, this is a great chance to give to get. if the white house did decide to want to have witnesses, as ridiculous as that is that they'den in control, we'd know who they want, the whistle-blower, house intel chairman adam schiff. if the -- and was trying to root it out, that's all he wanted to do, look, i argue i don't believe that justifies how this president went about pressuring ukraine. but if his lawyers slice up biden, it would help the politics of acquittal. and finally, the hypocrisy of the current situation is going to be part of the stain of this event on history. mcconnell will be haunted by w

so we've had mulvaney. we've had trump and we've had sondland say the president told him he wants zelensky to go on cnn, not msnbc, cnn and say we're starting an investigation into the bidens and burisma. >> if you had counsel to chairman schiff would you suggest as you're intimating there's important firsthand testimony to be given by individuals like bolten, like cooperman, like mulvaney and we might get a decision from the court as to whether they should and will give testimony to the intel committee or to congress in general. should we then wait a week or two? >> it won't be a week or two. they have a right to appeal, which they will be appealing to the courts on the decision on mcgahn. they will appeal and appeal and appeal and delay and delay and delay. if we don't act now, and we kind of wait for them and wait and wait, we'd be shlameals. the justice judiciary committee has to act on the american people and not be rope-a-doped by an administration obstructing congress and refusing people to have the

mulvaney, secretary pompeo, secretary perry and their top advisers. on july 19th, ambassador sondland emailed mr. mulvaney, secretary perry, secretary pompeo and others after speaking with president zelensky. the subject was i talked to zelensky just now. and ambassador sondland wrote, he has prepared to receive potis call, president of the united states. will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will, quote, turn other every stone unquote. both secretary perry and chief of staff mulvaney quickly responded to the email, noting that given that conversation a date would soon be set to schedule the white house telephone call. the evidence also unambiguously shows that the ukrainians understood this quid pro quo and had serious reservations, particularly because president zelensky had won the election on an anti-corruption platform. in fact, a few days before the july 25th call, ambassador william taylor, the acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine and the former permanent ambassador to ukraine texted ambassador sondland and v

schumer sent a letter to mcconnell yesterday proposing that the senate subpoena with bolton and mulvaneylong with two other people close to the president who may know about the delay of military aid to ukraine. in a letter, he writes, senate democrats, believe strongly, and i trust senate republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts and that exercises the senate's sole power of impeachment under the constitution with integrity and dig ny. president trump has repeatedly lashed out against impeachment and has told confidantes that even if he is acquitted in the senate as expected it will be a stain on his legacy but the a. p. is noting that he believes impeachment could be a political winner, setting re-election campaign data, that shows his campaign rally attendance and battleground poll numbers have increased since the inquiry began. and senator schumer joins us later this morning on "morning joe." you don't want to miss that. >>> democrats are considering a rare conservative voice for the impeachment inquiry of president trump. th

mulvaney, secretary pompeo, secretary perry, and their top advisors. on july 19th, ambassador sondland emailed mr. mulvaney, secretary perry, secretary pompeo and others after speaking to president zelensky. the subject was, i talked to zelensky just now. and ambassador sondland wrote, he is prepared to receive potus's call. potus is president of the united states. we'll assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will, quote, turn over every stone, unquote. both secretary perry and chief of staff mulvaney quickly responded to the email noting that given that conversation, a date would soon be set to schedule the white house telephone call. the evidence also unambiguously shows that the ukrainians understood this quid pro quo and had serious reservations, particularly because president zelensky had won the election on an anti-corruption platform. in fact a few days before the july 25th call ambassador william taylor the abilitying u.s. ambassador to ukraine and the former permanent ambassador to ukraine texted ambassador son

this would include testimony from folks like mick mulvaney and john bolton.m -- to get republicans to go along with that since they are in the majority, would you be willing to negotiate on witnesses that republicans would like to call during the trial as well? >> i suppose it depends on who those witnesses are, but sure. we've got -- it's amazing, these are witnesses that the white house should have supplied as a matter of course because the congress asked to hear them. the president is hiding behind this inventedturn o eut that ev the way he says it is. he's trying to downplay this, telling his supporters there's nothing to see here, but i think we're going to find out that it's a pretty serious thing when the president of the united states tries to extort a foreign leader and get them to interfere in our elections. i don't think that's going to wear well. >> you pose an important question. you also lay out how important you think it is to get the likes of mulvaney and bolton and others to testify. if it is so important, what about hunter biden? would you t

you can say mulvaney. you can say pompeo. giuliani. go down the list. that's not something that the house democrats brought up very much. the other thing that schumer was saying, which was interesting, is that there's not a single fact that republicans tried to refute. that's something they'll hammer home a lot. republicans were completely dwelling on process during the house portion of this. and they just don't have any leg to stand on. >> they're in charge of the process. >> right. i think there again, schumer is probably talking to six or seven republicans in the senate right now, more than anyone else. >> seemed very smart about this letter that he sent. he took away two of their huge talking opponents. one is that we cannot go through an endless ongoing impeachment process. he laid down the time down to the hours as to how long testimony will be. and that it's all hearsay. he's saying bring in these specific people. it might very well reach a point where, as you mentioned, they're trying to negotiate we'll bring in the whistle-blower in exchange fo

mulvaney, bolton, a couple others. they should know a lot about why aid to ukraine was held up and they've all been silenced by this president and they may be kept quiet by senate republicans who seem intent to hold a trial with no witnesses. nevertheless, the house judiciary committee found enough to send up two articles of impeachment and in their new 658-page report out just today, they describe the behavior underlying thing alleged abuse of power as part of a criminal plot involving this president and crimes of bribery and wire fraud. now, the big vote in the full house on both articles of impeachment is just days away. today another moderate democrat announced what her vote will be, impeach. let's bring in chrissy houlahan from pennsylvania, a foreign affairs committee member. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> why declare tonight? why did it take you so long to decide? >> sure. it took me a long time to decide. none of us want to be here making this decision. i'm a veteran and an engineer. i

after mick mulvaney's epic fail that day in the briefing room. >> let's be clear. you just described a quid pro quo. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. and i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >>> and good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. competing for the chance to run against an impeached president, the seven top democrats fighting for the nomination went at each other in a fiery debate last night. after a rapid rise in the iowa polls, pete buttigieg took most of the heat from his competitors, especially during this exchange with elizabeth warren over campaign fundraisers, including his recent one in a california wine cave. >> billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the united states. >> this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. if i pledged never to be in the company of a progressive democratic donor, i couldn't be up here. senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. >> i do not sell access to my time. i don't do call

to remember about mick mulvaney. in his heart he is a deficit hall. that might not have been in practice during his time in the trump administration. but he likes the idea of ending foreign aid that he thinks is counterproductive. he likes cutting funding. so in theory he liked thisic itt congre but his conduct, and it' true, we haven't seen him, he's not a witness, he doesn't have any intention to appear before congress. but he was careful. he was watching out for someone's legal equities. he left -- "this time's report. mick mulvaney has said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever trump would talk to mr. giuliani to preserve mr. trump's attorney/client privilege leaving him with limited knowledge about their efforts regarding. and in what capacity was rudy acting as his private lawyer? >> right. you don't step out of the room if you don't think there's something you don't want to hear. and if he's cognisant of the attorney/client privilege, he certainly had at least some awareness of what was going

are in the middle of something that mulvaney would never have stood for as a member of congress. the idea that the president, the executive branch, can get involved in holding back money approved by congress notwithstanding this was approved military aid for a country in a hot war with russia. >> you might have mentioned this before, but the career public servants throughout the defense department, the state department, and even the office of management and budget as mr. sandy mentioned were freaked out by what was going on. they were looking at each other like, is this legal? can you even not spend this money once it's been appropriated? and the testimony from the depositions and even the open hearings corroborated that. so i now think that these folks knew at the highest levels that what they were doing was not only wrong, but probably illegal, and that's why they wanted to keep things hush, hush. keep this, quote, unquote, closely held, which is just a fancy term for don't tell anybody about it. >> talk to me about what you are saying to your constituents who are asking what t

the same with mulvaney. at one point he said there was a deal with ukrainians.hat he walked it back. his credit ability is not high. but still i think they would like to go after him about that, the democrats would. it is important for the fact to get out. for that house to take a stand. and to say this is wrong. at the republican-controlled majority in the senate is willing to accept this, so be it. but history should record that the house felt this conduct was unacceptable and i think many people who have looked at it believe it is even more's worse and much worse than what went on and that richard nixon near impeachment which led him to resign. >> thousands of colombians turned out in bogotÁ to protest tax reform. demonstrators say the measure is currently being debated in congress and should be scrapped because it would only benefit the rest and benefit -- the rich and businesses. capital hein the says the turnout is lower than previous demonstrations. >> the crowds were way smaller than what we have seen in past weeks. peaceful absolutely and colorful as ha

>> probably mulvaney. probably bolton.that the president has said none of you will testify and they have complied with that. so there you have it. but, you know, mulvaney already said get over it. this is what we do. oh, really? you shake down the president of another country for political ends? that's what they do? okay. i think that's an admission right there. >> if this does come up in the negotiations, right? so as this is being worked out in terms of who will potentially testify, if you're told or if, you know, chuck schumer is told we'll give you mulvaney. we want to hear from joe and hunter biden. what do you think the response will be? >> well, that continues the whole conspiracy theory that the republicans keep pushing. it's been debunked. you asked earlier is this going to waylay the focus of the impeachment proceedings? yes, that will. so this whole idea of pushing forward a conspiracy theory, that's not what the impeachment proceedings should be about. one thing the republicans should do which they haven't done

in one email reported by "the times," a warehouse aide warned acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, that, of course, the chief of staff to the president, that congress would become unhinged by the hold in aid. of course, laws required when congress appropriates funds that those funds are spent. in a meeting, the president ignored a direct appeal to release the funding from three of his own senior appointees. then national security adviser john bolton, defense secretary mark esper, secretary of state, mike pompeo. joining me now, one of "the new york times'" reporter on that story, eric lipton. eric, good to have you on this morning. thanks very much. >> thank you, yes. >> as you know, the central defense from republicans in the larger impeachment question is or insufficient proof that this from the president. you have three of the president's senior advisers going to the president trying to be released and being refused. and you have his chief of staff here seemingly carrying out this order. what does this do to that defense? >> there's no ambiguity at all that this was an order from the

robert blair, top aide to mulvaney who was on the call. >> yes. >> stephen: mulvaney said there was quidol his butt in there the way sam irvin said to butterfield if you don't come in here marshals will pick you up off the street to come in her and testify in the watergate hearings about the secret tapes. why not send him? >> he should testify. >> stephen: what can you do to compel them? >> well, we can compel them by holding the president accountable by impeaching him, for one thing. but here's what they are trying to do, they would like nothing better for us to go to court, win in the district court, win in the court of appeals, wait for the supreme court on this claim of absolute immunity, and then, when that is all done, and that will probably take at least a year to wind the way through the courts, it will come back to us. we will have mick mulvaney before our committee. we will ask him the question, he's no longer absolutely immune from testifying, and he will say, well, now i'm going to claim executive privilege and i'm not going to answer the questions you need answered. then we

what stood out was the fact we knew that mick mulvaney is carrying the president's water on this but there were key meetings he was left out of. what was the reason. to give himself plausible deniability or for the president and rudy giuliani to have attorney/client privilege and that isn that democrats have moving forward, might have questions for mick mulvaney. but the reality is republicans in the senate pretty much had their minds made up and they know exactly what they're going to do moving forward and i don't think anything out of this article that will change their minds. >> and jane, mick mulvaney in the emails that the "new york times" uncovered, a month before the call talking about with holding the aid. >> i agree i don't think this will change minds for republicans because i think republicans are answering to a larger and more to them more important master which is trump who holds control of the popularity with voters and we see so many times with this administration there has been a kind of a standard deviation difference between donald trump and the trump administration

he has named mick mulvaney. he has named rick perry, mick mulvaney as somebody he would like to see testify. whether it comes to that, i would be highly skeptical, and as for the president himself testifying, that would be an incredible moment in the chamber of the united states senate, but again, he never took that opportunity when it came to the special counsel. >> don't hold your breath on that. barbara comstock, i'm told you were shaking your head when i asked that question. >> reporter: i don't think you're going to see the president testify, and i think if chuck schumer wanted to play a little, he might say, hey. we'll get the whistle-blower, the bidens if you give us, you know, bolton and mulvaney and, you know, others that haven't testified. i think that would probably shorten the trial and they would just move along. >> biden has made it very clear he doesn't want to testify. as we talk about the trial, let's talk about the role of the chief justice. chief justice john roberts. he'll go in and preside a

not exist if mulvaney was in the room.not unusual on its face but incredibly revealing on what was happening. rudy guilliani was acting in his personal capacity for the president's political interests. there is question whether or not he was a lawyer at all or whether the attorney-client privilege would apply to this situation. that said, it was clear this was not rudy guilliani carrying out policy of the united states, not rudy guilliani coordinating with other government officials in order to carry out the president's national security mission. this is the president being warned by his own top officials this is harmful in the national interests, essentially cutting them out in order to have this private conversation with rudy guilliani. what this really was about was not corruption and national interest but the personal benefit to the president. >> the kwoequestion over privil rudy guilliani is working pro bono for the president but the ukrainian businessmen, to the tune of many many thousands of dollars, important to po

he should make mulvaney available today. >> no.to the senate and the length of the trial and the witnesses they come to. i'm saying there is no fear of that because i don't think mr. mulvaney or anybody has anything to hide. >> congressman johnson, we've been inviting you on, which i appreciate. i hope you'll come back on "the beat" after tonight. >> i enjoyed it. >> thank you very much. when we come back, some news on rudy giuliani and the key admission. that's next. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. and i approve this message. climate is the number one priority. i would declare a state of emergency on day one. congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever. this is a problem which continues to get worse. i've spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies, stopping pipelines, stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. how are we going to pull this country together? we take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the w

to remember about mick mulvaney. in his heart, he is a, that might not have been in practice during the trump administration, and disappointed in mick for that but he likes the idea of ending foreign aid that he thinks is counterproductive. he likes cutting funding, so in theory, he liked this idea. in practice, it was going against congressionally mandated funding that should have been released and executed. and he admitted it. >> but his conduct, and it's true, we haven't seen him, he is not a witness, he doesn't have any intention to appear before congress, but he was careful. he was watching out for someone's legal equity, it is not clear whose, this times report has the most interesting revelations here at the end. mulvaney is said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever trump would talk to mr. giuliani. to preserve mr. trump's attorney-client privilege, leaving him with limited knowledge of about their efforts regarding ukraine. white house chief of staff and talking about efforts with ukraine an

mick mulvaney still runs it. he's the acting chief of staff.d goes. that's early april. after mueller's finding went to the doj, early april, but before the full report came out. but the question is raised, were they hustling to create a distraction from the mueller report? ukraine is behind this election interference, forget the russia report. then less than two weeks later on april 23rd and april 24th, eat series of calls between giuliani, parnas, and white house officials. so, one thing's for sure, this parnas is not just some guy on the outside who doesn't know anything. he's in there. now we know rudy took credit for getting the u.s. ambassador removed. but the day she was ordered home, he talked to the white house eight times, all right? the next day, joe biden announced he's running for the white house. we now know for sure what the president wanted. the question for the democrats is can you show that's why aid was withheld. now, that takes us to august 8th. mark sandy at omb, the agency that controlled the aid, remember, he testified. h

mick mulvaney is one of them, pat cipollone is one of them. the lawyerly part of that is if this thing goes all the way and they never release the aid, it gets to september 30 and sorry ukraine you're out of luck, you didn't do what we asked you to do, they were going to say this wasn't illegal not withstanding the fact there's a law that says congress has the power of the purse. you have to spend it. the president doesn't get to put that in his pocket as he used to up until the nixon administration. they were going to say forget it, not withstanding the reform when it coms to national security, the president still has the final say. congress does not have the power of the purse. it's the inverse of what we saw with the wall spending where the president takes things not appropriated by congress and says he's going to spend it on things he wants, a wall, and he's not going to spend it. two sides of the same coin. >> were it not for the whistleblower complaint, who knows what would have happened with that aid. this "new york times" piece bolster

it do you ever see mulvaney and bolton testifying? could you see these witnesses coming? >> perhaps. very importantly, the reason for the distrust of mitch mcconnell is justice roberts does not actually make final decisions. he's merely custodian of the process. essentially it's the rule of 51. whatever 51 senators agree to they can even overrule a ruling of justice roberts, and that's the concern for nancy pelosi. lindsey graham, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, gave an opening to house democrats today. he said we can't call witnesses in the senate trial if their protestations haven't been fully litigated and heard by the court. denying the president his day in court withholding from the senate. okay, chairman graham. we understand that. let's wait for the courts to fully litigate whether or not these people have to testify, mulvaney and others, and upon hearing the ruling of the court, then the house will determine whether or not to refer the articles over. in other words, we'll wait, lindsey graham. the house can wait. >> mcconnell, schumer, pelosi, a lot to

he was a close adviser to mick mulvaney.came over to the white house and he was present in these discussions about holding up money. the last person on this list is michael duffey, someone else who has refused to testify in the house proceedings. he's a current omb official, and he was in an odd position because he was a political appointee who helped hold back this money for ukraine. normally that's a job reserved for career staffers, again, someone we have not heard from. none of these folks are going to show up willingly. they're all hiding behind this white house demand that they not show up and testify, so we'll see if it's any different when it gets to the senate, dana. >> hard to believe it will be. thanks so much for laying that out. joining me from capitol hill is democratic senator holland from maryland. thanks for joining me. i want to get to the quote you said last week. you said what the president did is, quote, an attack on our democracy, and you also said, quote, that you have to hold the president accountable

mick mulvaney and john bolton and two other officials who were heavily involved and if he wants due process he wants the right to be heard. donald trump is refusing the right to be heard, and i would ask him and frankly, mitch mcconnell and my republican colleagues what is so horrible about asking people to come testify who have eyewitness accounts of what's happening here? the president is really just covering up. he has no rebuttal. he has had no -- he has issued no exculpatory evidence of the charges against him and we're giving him the opportunity to bring people to the trial. you know, a trial without witnesses is not a trial at all, and so we believe very strongly that the president -- that these witnesses should come, that documents should be forthcoming. that's what the due process cause is all about, right? the right to be heard. the president refuses the right to be heard and it seems quite likely because he knows he's guilty. >> so obviously, as you point out, mulvaney and bolton, i know you've asked for two others and if exonerated they would have the ability to do so. it doesn'

and second, after that, mick mulvaney.d into this, nothing these witnesses did did anything but corroborate what the president said as you said, back to the whistleblower's complaint. to mick mulvaney and the consist testimony of the cream of our diplomatic core, all leads to the same conclusion. the president, we know they withheld this aid. it wasn't released until after there was public congressional pressure it was public. ukrainians were aware of this. they talk so much. and you and i have talked about latin phrases. a quid pro quo. the other one you and i referenced, it speaks for itself. in this case, the law that the president violated, the harm he did, speaks for itself. i just caution reading too much into -- >> -- there's concern that if you go back to mueller -- i guess you could dovetail an obstruction, an article of impeachment obstruction then and now, but lose votes. are you worried if you reach back to mueller, as we're hearing from moderate democrats, you lose votes? >> i don't know how listing more tr cr

mcgahn is a stalking horse for mick mulvaney and don mcgahn has no excuse thought to go in.f he gets enough of his book written, which he's trying to do, he's ready to testify. he wants to promote that book and be a star again in the country. but the mcgahn ruling, i think, would give him that opening and my guess is mick mulvaney, who know nows he'll be fired, the same. so again the -- i don't think we're going to see a second impeachment on obstruction, whether we should or shouldn't legally. but i think this is a stalking horse to get at other witnesses. >> so go ahead. >> i was going to say more bolton because he's not currently in the administration. this is an open question even during the course of the impeachment inquiry. would the rulings come in time to open the flood gates for the other people like bolton and charles kupperman but if we're talking about what cory's point is that half of the house democrats are making that we should be doing obstruction of justice and this is a debate and they made a decision not to because they thought they didn't have a absolute

the one from mulvaney wasn't followed up on.on't believe pompeo was subpoenaed, but democrats have been weary from the get go. if you wait for any of these individuals to fight this out in the courts, sort of a proxy fight for getting john bolton to come testify, you could drag this out for months. the courts have moved quickly in part because of the seriousness of an impeachment inquiry, the judge has said as much in her decisions. there was an interesting wrinkle a few hours ago where you had the president of the united states in london say he'd been more than willing to let the senior officials in his administration to testify but he'd want that to happen in a senate trial. whether that would happen r or true is a whole different set of questions, but it does raise possibility these folks could be heard from veventually and demo have said from the beginning, they're comfortable in the set of facts they've been able to establish thus far. they can make the case they believe on the facts without getting a mulvaney or bolton, bu