peter baker, that old term "stonewalling" is back in our lexicon. it seems to me it worked for this administration on aspects of the mueller report. stonewalling even worked for them in person when lewandowski went before the committee, and yet for much of it was not present. do they think they can win this going forward that way? and does this ever end with another sitting president deposed? >> yeah, it's a great question. look, this is a strategy to take it from the playbook to other presidents who faced impeachment in modern times. the idea is you turn the issue into the behavior of your opponents. you try to make the process the enemy. you try to focus on anything except for your own president's behavior, in this case the idea is to say this is illegitimate, this is unfair, this is partisan, it's a witch hunt, to use a phrase, and it recognizes what's the president said last week even in public, that the democrats almost surely have the votes to impeach him should they choose to do so. most likely it will be along party lines. what the president

kimberly atkins, senior washington correspondent for wbur, and peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." good evening, gang. welcome to you all. peter, i'd like to start off with you. i'm going to ask the same question of your colleague, mr. rucker. do you believe, based on power of observation, that the president feels he's in control of any of this narrative? >> well, look, you know, he dominates our conversation like nobody else. if anybody can control a narrative, it would be him. but right now i think he's in a position he hasn't been through most of his presidency. he's in a position where he is, in fact, seeing other actors on the stage, in this case the house democrats, you know, putting out more information each day. he's making his own mistakes as he did with the g7 doral idea which he quickly retreated on in the face of not just democratic and media criticism but republican criticism. and the syria conversation, the syria decision where he basically abandoned the kurds who had been american allies hurt him with his own republican base, the people he n

wouldbob woodward of the "washin post" and "the new york times" peter baker will join us. ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. [sighs defeatedly] do you even know what you're doing? mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! (grover) do not worry, sir. i also fix cars! (burke) seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. ♪ bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum it's how we bring hope to our patients- like viola. her team treated her cancer and strengthened her spirit. so viola could focus on their future. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. when i lost my sight, my biggest fear was losing my independence. mmm... good. to help the visually impaired. we are so good. we built a guide that uses ibm watson... to help the blind. it is already working in cities like tokyo. my dream is to help millio

elizabeth bumiller, peter baker, carol loennig and figluzzi. peter, you were stationed there. what was he up to today? >> it reminds us of when the president and president putin met in osaka, japan. sir, are you going to tell president putin not to interfere in our next election and he turned to him and sort of made a joke, don't transfer. and they both laughed about it. you're seeing president putin laugh about it here. rye not laugh? this has accomplished a lot of what you wanted. putting aside even who you wanted to be elected and the intelligence community has concluded they wanted president trump to be elected. they wanted to disrupt our democracy. they wanted to disrupt our system. they wanted us to cause doubt in our institutions and our leadership and here we are, at each other's throat as a country. and that's almost exactly what vladimir putin would have wanted. >> so, elizabeth, we're looking at two leaders, disparate, though they might be, interlocked with interest? >> that's right. how much they're sympatico with each other. putin was joking, so was donald trump,

. >> and peter baker, just to backtrack, john sullivan is an attorney, he's very well-regarded. he's a done well as deputy secretary of state. he is not a career diplomat. he was in line to take a top job working under jim mattis at the pentagon and was brought over to the state department because he was needed to back up mike pompeo, to back up the secretary of state. but he's now being nominated for the russia job, to replace jon huntsman, a strange career move, to become ambassador to moscow after being deputy secretary of state. >> well, it is, yeah. and i think it says something about the nature of the state department right now that you would be 7,000 miles away than on the seventh floor. >> exactly. >> while the arrows are flying at each other's backs. sullivan had told masha yovanovitch that she had done nothing wrong but he was bringing her back despite the fact that she had done nothing wrong. that can't be something that he found to be pleasant, as a professional. sitting in the embassy in moscow seems less hazardous to his well-being at this point. i think he has a l

peter baker of the "new york times" sums up the importance of those text messages this way. the portrait that emerged from the texts and mr. volker's own testimony depicted a team scrambling to satisfy a deeply suspicious president and his relentless personal lawyer, mr. giuliani, who saw the united states' relationship with ukraine as predicated on its willingness to look into former vice president joe biden and other democrats. as we keep saying, it's a lot. and here to lead off our discussion on a friday night, susan page, washington bureau chief for usa today. john allen, nbc news national political reporter. former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade, and the aforementioned peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." peter, i hate to begin on a friday night with a process question, but i must. what will happen to everything under way if, indeed, a second whistle-blower comes up and has to be processed and spoken to and heard from on the hill and perhaps has even more pointed evidence than the first? >> well, it's very interesting of course because t

peter baker, this was one of the stranger days of recent times. if this isn't chaos, it'll do until chaos gets here. does this indicate a total lack of structure on the inside? >> well, it did feel like the day was kind of spiraling out of control at various points. from one rather extraordinary moment to another, to see the president of the united states say on camera in front of the world that we don't basically care about what's happening in the middle east was a rather striking, especially given that it happened just hours before his vice president and secretary of state were to jet off to the region to try to implement a ceasefire. that certainly didn't help their diplomatic mission to have the president say this doesn't really matter to the united states, that it's not of concern to them. then to see both parties, not just the democrats but the republicans, pile on with criticism is something that we haven't seen very often in this presidency. and then you see the remarkable meeting with speaker pelosi and that letter you that quoted. you kn

elizabeth bumiller, peter baker, carol leonnig and frank figliuzzi. peter, having been stationed there in your career and lifetime, you know a thing or two about putin and the russians. what was he up to there today? >> it reminds us of course when the president and president putin met most recently in osaka, japan. a reporter asked him, sir, are you going to tell president putin not to interfere in our next election. and he turned to him and sort of made a joke and said, don't interfere. and they both laughed about it and you're seeing president putin laugh about it here. why not laugh? if you're president putin, this has accomplished a lot of what you wanted. putting aside even who he wanted to be elected, and the intelligence community has concluded they wanted president trump to be elected, they wanted to disrupt our democracy. they wanted to disrupt our system. they wanted us to cause doubt in our institutions, in our leadership, and here we are at each other's throat as a country. and that's almost exactly what vladimir putin would have wanted.

we are waiting for peter baker from the "new york times" to join us. you, frank figliuzzi. why would an internal investigation focus on the white house lawyer who put this rough transcript in a server saved for code word intel and who it's also been reported that he took the meeting when the whistle-blower first approached her about his concerns. >> i think we would ask this riddle. when does an investigation become retaliation? because that's what this sounds like to me, nicole. it sounds like cover for going after the guy who trid to do the right thing, the guy who actually has to answer the question by saying you really incriminated yourself and compromised these calls. so they wouldn't see the light of day so what we could protect you from being accused of a crime. so if you don't want us to stick it in there, then we can release it publicly and let everyone see what you're doing here. so it looks to me a lot like retaliation. it looks like they are going to say -- here's where this is going to go. we found somebody who misused the classification s

joining me now, kristen welker, phil rucker, and peter baker. kristen, the white house, fast and furious, striking back today. a lot of developments. we want to talk about the pushback from mike pompeo, the pushback from the president, profanely on twitter. >> that's right, what you are seeing, andrea, is an intensifying standoff between the president trump administration and house democrats. now, just a sort time ago, house democrats threatening to issue a subpoena for documents related to the ukraine matter if they don't get them voluntarily by friday. so i reached out to the white house and said essentially, will you comply, will you turn over these documents? the white house choosing not to responsib respond directly to that, instead stephanie grisham slamming the probe as a kangaroo court, so definance from the white house at this hour. this comes as secretary of state mike pompeo accuses democrats of bullying state department officials to get them to testify. democrats firing back in kind, saying the secretary of state runs the risk of obs

[laughter] >> if i could extend on that -- >> did you quote peter baker? [laughter] >> no, i didn't. >> that is the next volume. >> the baker tapes. >> the essential baker tapes. >> what really worries me is that the constitution is relatively clear on how you impeach and convict a president. there is nothing in the constitution about how you physically remove him from the oval office. [laughter] >> no, i'm serious. >> think about the scenario. the president gets impeached and convicted, he's in the white house, he is tweeting to his followers, they are trying to take away your president, and they are trying to nullify your election, and here is a fact, his followers tend to be heavily armed. [laughter] >> so all it takes is 15,000 of them showing up heavily armed and washington, d.c. and you get something worse than tiananmen square. >> nixon's secretary of defense told the library that he was so concerned that someone in the white house would order a troop movement. he didn't think it would be nixon. he knew nixon well enough. nixon had other people to do

peter baker of "the new york times" writes, envoys representing mr. trump sought te rage the power of his office to prod ukraine io opening investigations that wou damage his democratic opponents at home. and karoun demirjian of "the t ahington post" reports t top u.s. officialto texted, aree now saying that security assistance and white house meetings are conditioned onig inveions and i think it'snd i crazy to withhold security assistance fh help w a political campaign. these textge mes underscored that the president is facing challenges, not only about the whistlebl complaint but about his use of power in amarican diplocy. joiningjo me tonight, karoun demirjian, with "the washingtons postan page with "u.s.a. today," tim alberta with" "politicd peter baker withd the and peork times." peter, take us under the hood ot what thet messages reveal about president trump and how he's using his power onkraine? peter: a couple of things. one, you get a picture of how much he had o.s.u. -- outsourced foreign policy in this area to rudy giuliani. the people char

peter baker, i love your main bar piece, the big one, the big foot. thank you. keep doing it. john brennen, you're passion and patriotism match up. thank you. >>> coming up, a new line of defense from trump's supporters apuce of power is not a crime. listen to that one. it dogged down nixon, it was one of his articles. and republicans have a new strategy, disrupt the hearings. this does remind me of the brooks brothers protest in 2000 down in florida or a panty raid. they are the dullest looking people. anyway, let's look at this. >> speaker pelosi has tyrannically commandeered the house of representatives. adam schiff has to stop, nancy pelosi has to stop. this process has to stop and it's got to stop now. >> anyway, trump has a message from republicans who don't support him. he calls them human scum. isn't that nice, to your fellow party member. plus trump's mission accomplished moment in syria. he thinks betraying our allies and getting out of dodge is, quote, big success. tell that to the kurds. we've got much more to get to tonight. stick with us. got much more to tonight

joining me now, phil rucker, peter baker, and ruth marcus. phil rucker, first of all, with a more do we know about these two men and their connection to giuliani in ukraine and how this might intersect with the impeachment inquiry? >> andrea, it's a fast-moving story. it sounds like we'll see these men in court later today. we may learn more information as the day bears on. but it shines a light on rudy giuliani who has been the president's personal lawyer for some time now. we've already been discussing the last few weeks the extent to which giuliani has commandeered american foreign policy with the state department, with his engagement in ukraine and doing other sort of personal missions on behalf of president trump. but this brings a potentially criminal element here because of these campaign finance violations and charges. and it raises a lot of questions about what exactly giuliani has been up to the last a couple of years. >> and one could imagine that in typical prosecutorial fashion, peter baker, they'll be pressed to tell what they k

peter baker, you had this testimony behind closed doors from fiona hill yesterday and your reporting brings directly into the mix the name john bolton. explain that connection. >> of course john bolton had served as the national security advisor until last month. he left in a rift with president trump on a number of issues including afghanistan, russia, north korea, iran. but we learned from fiona hill's testimony he was quite agitated about rudy giuliani's outside the system pressure campaign on ukraine, that giuliani was not a government official and yet he was meeting with ukrainian officials and playing a role in the discussion about whether or not the president of the united states would meet with the president of ukraine, what conditions there might be, whether or not ukraine would conduct investigations that would be politically beneficial to the president. and john bolton had this meeting on july 10th along with a couple of officials who were visiting. he told fiona hill to go follow the group when they went down to the war room of the white house to continue the discussion.

the impact of veteran ambassador william taylor's testimony on tuesday, encapsulated by peter baker in "the new york times," writing, in by far the most damning account yet to become public in the house impeachment inquiry, mr. taylor described a president holding up $391 million in assistance for the clear purpose of forcing ukraine to investigate his political rifles. from dan balz in "the washington post," it's about how the president explains it and how lawmakers choose to respond to it. mr. trump tied directly to events in ukraine in taylor's opening statement, saying, president trump told ambassador sondland that he was not asking for a quid pro quo. but president trump did insist that president zelensky of ukraine go to a make row phoicr say he's opening investigations of biden and 2016 election interference. then he said president trump wanted zelensky in a public box, end quote, by making a public statement ordering such investigations. joining me now is phil rucker from "the washington post" and "the new york times"' michael crowley. welcome, both. the writing of peter baker,

peter baker, msnbc political analyst.lenn kershner with me, a former federal prosecutor and gail lamont from the council on foreign relations. she has been to syria roughly a half dozen times in the last two years. i want to talk about syria in a moment, but peter, let me start with you. because we know that secretary of state is headed overseas. we know that the vice president is with him, we know that president erdogan has so far rejected the calls for a cease-fire. this is what senator mitt romney said when he was asked about this mission just a few minutes ago. >> it gets very hard to understand why it is that the vice president and secretary of state and others are going to talk with erdogan in turkey. look, the troops have been pulled out. if you will, it's like the farmer who lost all of his horses and goes to shut the barn door. turkey is devastating our allies, the kurds. it's too late for this conversation. >> never mind, peter baker, that the president just described his strategy along the border there as strat

it is, as peter baker describes it, lives are on the line. >> one of the things, we were talking aboutaylor a second ago. if you read those 14 pages, 15 pages, it's powerful and detailed and vivid in a lot of ways. but here is a thing that we don't see that much and that people outside washington i don't think really understand. when we talk about the deep state or these unelected bureaucrats. here's a guy who's been doing this for 50 years and when he writes about ur, he writes about ukraine with emotion. it was important to america's strategic interest. but also i care about this country. how much did he care about it? he cared about it so much that having left essentially during the obama administration kind of going to way from government for a period of time, he's asked to come back. >> i think to the institute of peace is still working. >> and his wife is telling him don't go. he's seen his predecessor get chewed up and spit out by donald trump. he's got mike pompeo saying please go back. and this guy who has no reason to take this job, again, in my wife said don't take the job,

and back with us peter baker for the "new york times" and msnbc political analyst.rom here. who are you watching for, if you will, the often said treasure-trove that might come out of the testimony that we won't necessarily be able to hear ourselves personally. >> you know, we won't hear it personally. that's i think in some ways a little bit tough for us, but it's really a positive. and it's also my answer to the question which is that i'm not looking to any one of these people in particular to be some sort of smoking gun or cap stone witness. i think it's the notion that there is now a process that's moving forward. it's important to remember that in past situations like this in prior impeachments, congress hasn't had to act as its own investigative agency. it's had either d.o.j. or special council doing the fact finding. that's the part that usually occurs in secret so that congress can hold hearings. this week we're seeing congress digging in, congress being the fact finder, congress in essence running a process that proxs a grand jury by taking testimony from t

peter baker, it is one thing to see what we saw yesterday. we know and "the washington post" has kept great track of this, how often the president lies. he clearly was angry yesterday, as peter pointed out. it is another thing altogether to do, would you agree, what he did this morning saying publicly to china and ukraine start an investigation into my political rival. >> for two years during the russia investigation, the mantra was no collusion, no collusion, meaning i didn't work with a foreign power to influence our domestic politics. now he's saying so what? so what if i do? he's doubling down? it's very much a defiant president you're seeing. he's defiant of the congress. he's saying the thing you're investigating i don't think is such a big deal at all. i think i have no only the right to do it, i should do it. i have the obligation to pursue corruption as he puts it. what congress would say is he's pursuing his political enemies using the power of his presidency to do so. no direct quid pro quo he mentioned this morning. he did start t

. >> peter baker of the "new york times" writes about that moment from last night's rally adding, quote, by now the notions of what is presidential and what is unconventional have taken on new meaning, long since divorced from anything that came before. if to the outside world it looked like his presidency was unraveling and the president himself melting down as speaker nancy pelosi said this week, to mr. trump, it was just another day in the never-ending battle with convention. and indeed yesterday felt different to people. the president trying to toss some big business to his own resort. his own chief of staff confirming the ukraine story. the steady march of insider testimony increasing the pace of impeachment on the hill. and his vice president in effect giving turkey everything it wanted in its drive to kill the kurds. with us for more here tonight, our own veteran, jonathan allen, nbc news national political reporter. jonathan, do we pretty much have it right on what this week felt like, what today felt like, what yesterday felt like in the life of this administration? >> i mean t

peter baker, chief white house correspondent at the "new york times."nd kim atkins, senior news correspondent at wbur in boston. kristin, let's talk about mick mulvaney, the cabinet meeting, all of these contradictions. where does it stand right now? >> reporter: andrea, the white house is in damage control mode. president trump, as you mentioned, right now holding a cabinet meeting and he's speaking out. we'll likely get that tape shortly. but he's trying to reset the narrative here. he's talking about syria. he's trying to make the case that the cease fire is holding, talking about the low unemployment rate. but the reality is the headlines of last week and this weekend have been making things more complicated for this administration. mick mulvaney, who came out to the briefing room, i was there and he essentially acknowledged that the administration was withholding aid for ukraine in exchange for investigating democrats in the 2016 election. he was trying to clarify and clean up those comments over the weekend, and of course you have this stunning re

joining me is kristin welker from the white house and peter baker, chief white house correspondent forhe "new york times" and an msnbc political analyst. jeff bennett, tell us what's happening so far on the hill as far as you know. >> reporter: fiona hill based on our reporting is telling these house investigates that ruth bader ginsberg -- rudy giuliani, that those two men ran an influence scheme that fell outside the normal protocol and procedures of the state department and that they in effect ran a shadow foreign policy in ukraine. fiona hill was not just president trump's top russia advisor, she was also a well-known russia hawk, a putin skeptic who at times was at odds with president trump over his stated desire to improve relations with vladimir putin. it's important to know that she was not at the white house. she was not a part of the nsc when this call in question happened, this july 25th call between presidents trump and zelensky, so she can't really speak in detail to that, but she can give house investigates a sense of what led up to it, the motivations of those involved,

. >> for more i'm joined by peter baker, "the new york times" chief correspondent and philip rucker. that clip we showed, that went on for some time, gardener refusing to answer. the question there was is it appropriate for the president to be asking a foreign country to aid in an investigation of his rival. gardener not the only republican who has been unwilling to answer that question. explain the complicated or tricky politics that is making republicans hesitant to answer that. >> well, steve, it sounds like a pretty simple question with a yes or no answer, but we've seen over the last couple of weeks that a number of republican senators have a had really pained experiences trying to come up with those answers. there have really actually been only a few, handful of senate republicans who have come out and said directly it's inappropriate or improper or wrong for a president to do what president trump appear tuesday have done which is to solicit help from a foreign government to help damage a domestic political opponent. and the reason for that is these republican senators are so f

jeremy bash, peter baker, thank you, both, and coming up, democratic congressman eric swalwell joinsation on the heels of ambassador bill taylor's testimony, he was in the room for that. we'll be talking to him next on "morning joe." fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. it's how we care for our cancer patients- like job. when he was diagnosed with cancer, his team at ctca created a personalized care plan to treat his cancer and side effects. so job could continue to work and stay strong for his family. this is how we inspire

i'm joined by dina titus, peter baker, glen kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, and jeff bennett is nbc news white house correspondent. jeff, tell us about your reporting today that vindman in his sworn testimony yesterday in that deposition said the military aid was contingent on the dirt on the trump enemies. >> and remember, chris, in the opening statement we obtained vindman told investigators he did not think it was proper for this administration to demand that a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen. that word, demand, struck me as curiously conspicuous. he could have chosen any number of words. he could have said request, encourage, suggest, but he used the word demand. it turns out during the course of his testimony he went beyond that prepared statement. and investigators were told by two sources familiar is that the president drew a direct line between the white house deliverables, this noelgz that there would be a meeting between presidents trump and zelensky, this delivery of nearly $400 million in security and aid money and to this demand that ukrainian offic

peter baker's right. >> all right. neal, chuck, we're so grateful to have you. thank you for starting us off. chuck's latest episode of his fabulous podcast, "the oath," is now available. this week he talks to our friend, joyce vance. you listen long enough, there might be another surprise appearance by her dog, bella. we loved having her yesterday. >>> when we come back, nearly two-thirds of americans support the impeachment inquiry into the president. that includes almost a third of republicans. 49% of americans also support his removal from office. when we come back, why donald trump's straw men are failing him this time. >>> also ahead, how trump's call with the leader of turkey caused a record number of gop defections at a time when donald trump needs them most. >>> and inside that disastrous policy of abandoning some of our closest allies in the region. all those stories coming up. on! let's hide in the attic. no. in the basement. why can't we just get in the running car? are you crazy? let's hide behind the chainsaws. smart. yeah. ok. if you're in a horro

peter baker is committee white house correspondent from "the new york times" and helped break the monica lewinsky scandal. good to have both of you for. we haven't been through this as a country many times before. peter, you covered the current white house. i have not heard of war rooms or strategy sessions. have you discovered what the trump administration is going to do? >> well, i think you have a war room of one right now, one man and an. phone or whatever smartphone he's using. there is no a coherent way, unlike the clinton white house, which did, in fact, build a war room to defend him in that impeachment. the president has yet to do that. he may get there. there is talk about that. there's a lot of struggling inside who would be in charge, without it be the white house chief of staff, a separate unit, that kind of thing. but the president feels like he's his own best defender at the moment. >> brennan: what do you think as someone who has been observing president trump's behavior? is he reacting as you would expect? >> you need to step become and look at who he is, and he's somebo

. >> also with us chief white house correspondent for the "new york times" peter baker. now democratic candidate for president, former congressman beto o'rourke of texas. how are the astros doing, beto? >> oh, no. >> pretty good. doing pretty good. but our congratulations to the nationals after last night. >> you know, beto, we're a little concerned that you are now -- we understand today you are going to be talking about confiscating the bat from the new york yankees, especially aaron judge without any -- kicking down the doors. so that of course leads us into the question, of course, that you talked to with mayor pete last night. tell us about your plan on the confiscation of guns, which obviously many p believe believ unconstitutional and very concerned that it plays right into the hands of republican candidates. >> to be clear i'm not talking about confiscating anybody's guns, but i do think that for those weapons of war, ar-15s, ak-47s, these were designed and sold to the militaries of the world to kill people on a battlefield, and there are more than 16 million of

this is by our friends, peter baker and nick fandos and reads in part, the effort to pressure ukraine for political help provoked a heated confrontation inside the white house last summer that so alarmed john bolton, then national security adviser, that he told an aide to alert white house lawyers, house investigators were told monday. quote, i am not part of whatever drug deal rudy and mulvaney are cooking up, mr. bolton told fiona hill to tell white house lawyers, according to the testimony. phil, you have reported on the frenzy that followed the first word of the whistle-blower. it seems to me it has nowhere to go now but to continue, as this is all ukraine, all the time. >> yeah. i think that's right, brian. this is incredible reporting tonight by "the new york times." congratulations to them t takes you right to the belly of the beast. we're not talking about intelligence officials, national security council members whose names we do not know. we're talking about giuliani, bolton, mulvaney, the key figures in president trump's orbit. there have been a lot of questions of late abo

i appreciate your time, peter baker from "the new york times" and harry, "washington post" columnist. >>> ukraine's top where joe biden's son sat on the board. ukraine's involvement and be sure to watch tomorrow night on msnbc, 9:00 p.m. eastern time. ari mehl ber holber looking int impeachment kwer ainquiry and w it's heading and then the plot that won the white house with rachel mad doe. tomorrow night. join us. h rachelad m doe tomorrow night join us. my insurance rates are probably gonna double. but dad, you've got allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. are you in good hands? >>> the days of the week since the release of the whistleblower complaint and president trump's phone call with the ukrainian president, there have been layers upon layers of information that have been revealed. the list collected by house democrats as long as information still being requesting at this hour. so how did this controversy get started? and who are the key players? nbc now dasha burns with a breakdown. >> reporter:

tells three previous examples in american history, and of course the current one by jon meacham, peter bakeru make up your own mind as you watch the news unfold. >>> the answer to my gps challenge this week is b. the combined income of all adults in the median american household was $63,179 in 2018. this means that half of the households in the united states earned more than that number and half earned less. but the single number highlights h the disparity of median income across the world. for americans, it's 87,000, while for black incomes, it's 47,000. incomes across america is sky high. the report reveals that inequality in america in 2018 is the highest reported in 50 years. >>> thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. um, you guys are just going for a week, right? yeah! that's right. can you help with these? oh... um, we're more of the plan, invest and protect kind of help... sorry, little paws, so. but have fun! send a postcard! voya. helping you to and through retirement. no matter what life throws down ♪ roomba is up for the challenge. o

. >> anita, i want to read a portion of what our friend peter baker wrote for "the new york times," a survey of ten former white house chiefs of staff under president ronald reagan, bush, clinton, george w. bush, and barack obama found that none recalled any circumstances under which the white house had solicited or accepted political help from other countries. they all said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds. this gets us to phone call number one and what happened with the president of ukraine. and anita, if you had power of polygraph with the people you talked to in the west wing, same question. would anyone talk it up with a straight face? >> i haven't found that many people. we are seeing republicans not criticize the president over the ukraine call, but privately, they are calling it -- people that are close to him, people that support president trump that advise him on the outside are calling it a mistake. they're calling it naive, and they're saying that he shouldn't have done that. but what we're seeing is that the president has said repeatedly now that he

also with me, "new york times" chief white house correspondent, peter baker, jake sherman and former u.s. attorney, joyce vance. josh, i'm going to put the two texts up on the screen between sondland and taylor. bill taylor says he thinks it is crazy as he said on the phone, crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. five hours later in a markedly different tone, much more formal, sondland says bill, i believe you were inkrek about president trump's intentions. the president has been clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. the president is trying to evaluate whether you crane is going to adopt the reforms president zelensky promised. i suggest we stop the back and forth by text if you have still have concerns, i recommend you give lisa kenna a call to discuss them directly. thanks. josh, again, a kimpbt taupe. some different tone. some called this a cya text. your new reporting shows that this ambassador had a phone conversation with the president between those two texts. do you know what they talked about? >> we don't know. but what nbc news is has confir

previous examples in american history and of course the current one, by jon meacham, tim naftali, peter bakerp you make up your own mind as you watch the news unfold. th "gps" challenge this week is "b," the combined income of all adults in the median american household was $63,179 in 2018. this means that half of the households in the united states earned more than that number and half earned less. but this single number hides how much income disparity there is across the country. for example, the medianation household earns over $87,000, while for black individuals, that number is just around $41,000. the average income is much higher hat $90,000, because incomes at the top in america are sky-high. the report reveals that inequality in america in 2018 is the highest recorded in history year. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of c

peter baker of "the new york times" shares a byline on a report that says, "mr. trump was clearly eager to claim credit for the raid even as it became clear that military commanders had to rush the operation to execute it while sufficient american troops were still in place. while he used the occasion to defend his withdrawal decision, critics said the raid actually reinforced the need for an american military presence in the region." all of that brings us to right now, our leadoff discussion on a monday night. jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and the pentagon. notably former chief counsel to house intel. anita kumar, white house correspondent and associate editor for politico. jonathan swan, national political reporter from axios. robert costa, reporter for "washington post" and moderator of "washington week" on pbs. robert, i'd like to begin with you. you and phil rucker, 6:00 a.m. dropped this story on the growing concern, the sickening feeling especially among republicans in the senate, especially among the vulnerable republicans in the senate. w

tessa bereson is with "time" magazine and peter baker with "the new york times" and msnbc political analysts, congressional reporter for politico. welcome all three of you. peter, you first here. as i ask for your reaction on this court ruling, the key part of the decision made by the judge really affirms this impeachment process, but explain the thinking here. >> well, right. so, the last two impeachments, the one against president nixon that he short-circuited by resigning and the one that went against president clinton all the way to a house vote, were started by full votes on the floor, in other words, the full house voted on whether to authorize the inquiry. now, the white house has made the case that that means that they have to do that this time as well, but there's nothing in the constitution that says that, just because that was done in the previous two cases doesn't mean that that's required by the constitution. and what that means, therefore, is the argument that the white house has made that they don't have to provide testimony, they don't have to provide documents because this