talk about -- peter baker has some brand-new reporting about john bolton.ell me what john bolton is needed for in this investigation. it would seem that witnesses like fiona hill and colonel vindman and bill taylor and gordon sondland have all brought him to life. what is it -- or, i mean, am i accurate in saying that they want to do this -- do they still want john bolton? >> i will tell you that democrats don't think they need them. they've already got the goods. and the question now is how we schedule the witnesses so that we can tell the story in the most compelling way. they told me that the reason why they were doing that is number one, bill taylor is the most compelling because he draws a straight line to president trump who said it was president trump's orders that zelensky go to a microphone and announce these investigations or -- and this is the or and the hammer -- there would be a stalemate, essentially a quid pro quo or democrats want us to drop the latin now and just say this is basically a guns for dirt situation here. and so democrats don't t

back with us, phillip rucker, jill colvin and peter baker. there is reporting that the house republicans plan to shield donald trump from impeachment from the inquiry is to focus on three people. the u.s. ambassador to the european union, gordon sun land and possibly acting white house chief of staff nick mull vain -- mulvaney. they are suggesting any of them could be freelancing. >> this strategy on the president's fiercest defenders in the house republican conference and looking at those three fake players that figure prominently so far in the testimony that's been gathered in this impeachment inquiry to basically try to distance the president from some of the worst allegations from the quid pro quo by speculating whether they were freelancing and acting upon what they assumed to be the president's motivations and interests but without direct orders and directives from the president, mark meadows, the republican congressman from north carolina, close confident of presidents trump spoke to my colleagues about this and basically said the whol

alternate channel, this side channel of foreign policy that was being led by rudy giuliani. >> peter baker, meanwhile, this was thursday in ukraine, a nation involved in a military effort against russia and it really wasn't until the two veteran diplomats yesterday spoke with empathy and passion about ukraine and the ukrainian people that we had our attention focused back on that conflict and their ongoing trouble. you tweeted out a photograph yesterday that i'd love you to describe along with the verbiage that came with it. >> yeah, right, well, look one thing that president trump can rightly say and his defenders made that point yesterday he did something that president obama didn't do something, authorized legal assistance, not just night goggles and blankets and food and rations and so forth but actual, you know, basically guns and the biggest symbol of that are these involve gin anti-tank weapons that he has been very proud of supplying but what often gets missed in the conversation is my colleague andrea kremer out there is that javelins are not allowed to be used in the war. they're

nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter bakernbc justice and security analyst matt miller is here with me. kristen, talk about the white house's reaction to the decision last night from a federal judge on the don mcgahn case which stemmed from a case last spring involving the mueller probe, not the impeachment probe. >> reporter: that's right, andrea, the justice department has already filed an appeal, that was expected. kellyanne conway, top adviser at the white house, said she believed ultimately they would prevail if this were to go all the way to the supreme court. president trump is tweeting about this, andrea. let me read you what he had to say. the d.c. wolves and fake news media are reading far too much into people being forced by courts to testify before congress. i am fighting for future presidents and the office of the president. other than that i would actually like people to testify. now, that argument, andrea, could potentially undercut the broader legal argument which is that the white house would like to say some

joining our conversation peter baker.omething that's been sort of whispered, and of course it's you that puts it in black and white. take us through what you're reporting. >> reporter: yeah. look. you named them all. but these are people we heard a lot about in these past two weeks. people who were in the room, people who were in the loop at least according to testimony. people who had major roles to play one way or the other. and we have not heard from any of them. mulvaney was said to be a facilitator of this ukraine pressure scheme. is that correct? remember he told us in the briefing room that there was quid pro quo of security aid. and john bolton was against it according to fiona hill and other witnesses. he thought it was a metaphorical drug deal. he thought that rudy giuliani was a hand grenade waiting to blow up. who wouldn't want to hear more about what they said? the republicans said correctly in some cases, that some of these witnesses were second hand. bill taylor never talked to the president of the united s

peter baker among the authors of that piece. he's standing by to join us in a moment. tim morrison worked for former national security adviser john bolton. and over thena weekend, his deposition was released. he testified that bolton had met privately with trump in august to trywi to persuade the boss t release nearly $400 million in aid to ukraine and that, quote, ambassador bolton simply said he wasn't ready to do it. morrison also told investigators about trump donor-turned-ambassador to the eu gordon sondland's involvement in the administration's effort to pressure ukraine. quote, ambassador sondland believed and at least related to me that the president was giving him instruction. gordon sondland is scheduled to testify wednesday morning. it's likely to be an eventful day. remember, he has already amended his first closed-door deposition, revealing that he told a tops ukrainian official the country probably would have to give in to trump's demands and announce investigations into his political rivals, the bidens, if they wanted to unlock the military aid. "the wal

>> i will quote peter baker. who, in december 17, you did one of these long stories that you are talking about, about trump's daily life. you quoted somebody saying that trump had said during the transition, i want to treat every day of the presidency as a tv show in which i vanquish my rivals. >> right. >> so, no. >> if i could extend on that, >> did you quote peter baker? >> that is the next volume. >> the baker tapes. what really worries me is that the constitution is relatively clear on how you impeach and convict a president. there is nothing about how you physically remove him from the oval office. think about the scenario. the president gets impeached and convicted, he's in the white house, he's pleading to his followers, they are trying to take away your president, and his followers tend to be heavily armed. all it takes is 15,000 of them showing up heavily armed and washington, d.c. and you get something worse than tiananmen square. >> the secretary of defense said he was so concerned that someone in the

in washington tamyra keith, white house correspondent for npr and peter baker, our correspondent for the new york times and coauthor of "impeachment" book. >> phil, i would like to begin with you. what does mark sandy bring to the conversation, remind the omb role in this story? >> mark sandy is as career official at the office of management and budget. he's not as political appointee of president trump. he decided to defy the order, trying to present all of these lawyers testifying. it was the omb that was involved and stopping the $400 million aid from flowing into ukraine. the aid went to ukraine but there was a delay, it was ordered according to reporting by the president, sets forth by mulvaney and the omb director and mr. sandy should shed much more light and details in the process inside. and what the system was for documenting that. >> we should repeat these witnesses that have come forward are about to appear in these hearings. they are not limited in their testimony to what's on the deposition indeed, mr. taylor, gave us new details we did not know. what is yovanovitch like

peter baker, joyce vance, frank, thanks for starting us off. when we come back, sean hannity is walter cronkite? a famous beloved historian claimed on this network earlier today that it just might be the thing that breaks the fever of tribalism in our country. but will it ever happen? also ahead, donald trump says goodbye to the big apple and heads to the sunshine state. and new yorkers seem just fine with it. we'll go inside donald trump's complicated relationship with new york, and ask if anyone is going to miss him. and the 2020 democrats set their sights on iowa. we'll go inside the tight race, in that state, that chooses first, all of those stories coming up. >>> i do wonder, if we're in an age now, where the only thing that could threaten donald trump would be a cronkite moment on vietnam, asking what the hell is going none vietnam, after tet. except this time it is a fox news moment, it is a rupert murdoch moment that breaks the tribalism at some point. >> that's a good point. are we in an age where sean hannity is walter cronkite and pa

and for that we are joined by peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" and co-author of the book "impeachment and american history." annie karni, white house reporter also with "the new york times," and jeremy bash, formeru chief of staff at the cia and the pentagon and notably former chief counsel at the house intel committee. peter, i'd like to begin with you tonight. we just learned of an interview the president has given to two journalists with "the washington examiner." i'll read you this. this is over a phone call that is a good call, trump sitting behind the resolute desk said, "at some point, i'm going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television and i will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. when you read it, it's a straight call." peter, a couple of notes here. we haven't seen or heard yet the transcript of the call. we have seen a summary of the call.ot so that much i suppose would be news. what do you make of this? >> well, look, i think it actually goes to his theatrical entertainment style of the presi

but so far so good. >> peter baker, we learned that deputy chief of staff is departing the west wing. he is a long time veteran of the trump administration. we learned from your colleague maggie haberman that he does a lot of the true work and a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes in the west wing. does his now about to be former boss mulvaney, do you think, survive ukraine? >> yeah, it's a great question. look, mick mulvaney seemed to be on thin ice even before the ukraine thing happened. there has been -- he was at odds with john bolton. he's at odds with the white house counsel. and the president do not always see hieye-to-eye. the ukraine thing became a bigger problem for mulvaney when went to the briefing room and admitted in front of all the reporters that there was a condition on military aid to ukraine on them conducting investigations of democratic supposed this conspiracy theory of 2016. then he tried to take it back. so the question for him at the moment is, you know, does he do more damage to the president on the outside? i think as long as he's seen as somebody who

"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 working on this report from the judiciary committee that picks up articles of impeachment to the floor

. >> peter baker, i'd like to read you a quote that you already know a well. speaker of the house pelosi, this was back in march. it's a standard she held on to until the ukraine story broke. it wasst recognized by the democrats as something easily understandable, easily explainable perhaps, of course when compared to the mueller report.to in march, nancy pelosi said, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path. peter, the question to you, have they met that standard? is anyone whispering to the contrary among democrats who may have impeachment remorse at this point? >> yeah, i think democrats think that the first two have been satisfied, compelling and overwhelming. it's the third one that hasn't, bipartisan. that's definitely not the case. ifth they thought these public hearings they just wrapped up after two weeks would change the dynamics, would change some republican csminds, not many bu at least a few, that didn't work out. the evidence la

the aforementioned peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," co-author, notably, of the new book "impeachment: an american history." mika o'yang, attorney and former staffer for both the house intel and armed services committees, and katie benner, justice department reporter for "the new york times." good evening and welcome to you all. counselor, i'd like to begin with you here in new york. what is this week likely to yield? how further down the road on the story are we likely to be sitting here friday night? >> so, what we saw last week was the action happening in ukraine. what our officials in ukraine understood where our instructions and why it's so important they're investigating corruption. this week, the action moves to washington, inside the white house. and we are going to hear from people who are hearing directly from the president what he wanted in terms of this exchange with ukrainians for an investigation -- exchange of a white house visit for an investigation of his rival, and the republicans are going to have a very hard time arguing that t

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. and you mentioned the depositions

he has a question for peter baker. wondering whether the reality show producer and chief is tuned in to this reality or what's going insofar as you can tell what's actually unfolding in the president's mind and imagination right now. >> well, i think what he looks at, his republican caucus as the be all and end all of his success, right? look what he tweeted out after yesterday's vote. he didn't tweet out about, you know, the shame of being the third president in 40 years to be subjected to an impeachment inquiry. he tweeted out, i didn't lose a single republican. so him, that's the measure of success, it always has been. i have 85%, 90% support among republicans. he's rarely made an effort to get beyond the base that he came to office with, right? he has not tried to expand his coalition. he's the only president we've ever had in the history of polling who never had the support of the majority of the american public even a single day while in office. that's i had play. his play is keep the ones you came with, make the

>> and peter baker there is not a report. these are emails.are stephen miller's emails, these are stephen miller's words, stephen miller's thoughts, this is stehim pushino have pro white nationalist articles written on breitbart. the same he stephen miller who responded to the paris killings by talking about a muslim registry in america. this is the same stephen himmer who miller who responded to san bernardino, the shoot tlings th, by talk about the muslim ban and donald trump followed him every step of the way. you look at these emails and i don't know how anyone looks at them and not conclude that stephen miller is a white nationalist or a champion of white nationalism. i ask anybody on the right -- not on the right, you're not on the right you're a trump supporter. i ask any trump supporters who support record-breaking deficits, record-breaking debt, tariff taxes, socialist farming schemes, all in the name of a personality called i ask you to sift through the 900 emails and come to the conclusion that he's not a white nationalist or at lea

the act chief of staff peter baker is suing. >> he's asking to join the lawsuit.he lawsuit names the president of the united states as a defendant along with congressional leaders. mulvaney's lawyers tried to finesse that. it's rather extraordinary because unlike cupperman and bolton who are former officials and out there on their own, mick mulvaney is working 50 steps from the oval office. the president's top aide refused to simply go along with what the president told him to do but instead went to the court asking the judge for a second opinion. mulvaney trying to join the lawsuit filed by cupperman is rather extraordinary because mulvaney and buolton were on opposite sides of this. mulvaney ordered the security aid suspended while the president was pushing ukraine for incriminating information about democrats. bolton was the one resisting it. the two were on opposite sides. they were known to not get along. so the idea of mulvaney trying to join this lawsuit has ironies on all sorts of fronts. >> mulvaney was uniquely capable of freezing that money despite what

peter baker of the "new york times" joins us with that new reporting. >>> plus, president trump appearsncing himself from his personal attorney rudy giuliani. in a new interview trump is denying he ever directed giuliani to go to ukraine on his behalf, despite all the evidence to the contrary. "morning joe" will be right back. " will be right back if your gums bleed when you brush, you may have gingivitis. 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. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. - [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself. i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problem

brenda wineapple, timothy naftali, and peter baker. thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> nawaz: on a day when families across t country gather for a thanksgiving meal, it's worth noting that over the next ri12 months, the average an household of four will spend roughly $1,800 on food they ver eat. special correspondent alisoney auf npr talks to scientist and cookbook author dana gunders about why americans waste so i muthe kitchen, and she gets some lessons on how to cut those losses. it's the latest in our special series on "food wast >> reporter: celebrity chefs share tricks of the trade-- l how to wasteess in the kitchen. it's part of 20-city tour underway the james beard foundation kicked off here in new york cit >> one of our key priorities is the reduction of food ste. >> reporter: esther choi is chef-owner of mokbar, a korean restaurant in brooklyn. tonight, she serves up a traditional korean rice dish she calls buddha bimp. and what's the easiest way to do that? >> you just turn up your oven at 150 to 200 degre

robert: one last tough question for peter baker on this special "washington weon." the washinationals, world champions. peter: thereatest week in the history. my goodness. what a week. the teamas the first world series championship in 19 -- 95 years. it only thingng that's brought the city together. and it's like a movie. they weye down and out from the beginning, 19-31, to comean bk win against the dominating team of our year. it's an amazing thing. >> the two stories are going to merge because the nats are goite to the wouse on monday. so we shall see s peter: ectly. they're going to go visit the president, whoooas when he visited game five. robert: i would see jake at r.k. by himself in 2006 and 2007 ke: i felt some nights i wasso the only p watching these broadcts of a lowly team. it'szi been a t see. robe: great. i'll be at the parade tomorrow. i'mi' robert costa. thanks for joining us and good d night. ♪ announcer: corporace funding fo" "washington wes proved by -- additional funding is proved by -koo and patricia yuen, through the yuen foundation, bdging cultu

. >> here for our leadoff discussion on a friday night, peter baker, chief white house correspondent for the "new york times" and co-author of the enough book "impeachment an american history," congressional reporter for political and former u.s. attorney joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. joyce, a few questions for you right off the top tonight. viewers of this network in primetime tonight know we're dealing with something of a breaking news story, a tranche of documents has been freed up from the state department via a court order. i'm wondering what you make of this. a number of them apparently show multiple contacts along the way between secretary of state pompeo and rudolph giuliani. some are going to be looking here to see if this account for pompeo's lack of air support for his actual employees. >> so this is about a hundred pages of documents that have been released. it's not the full amount of documents that were asked for. this is just the first tranche. they've been provided to an oversight organization. congress hasn't been able to access these docume

joining us with more on that, chief white house correspondent peter baker. peter, we have this picture on our screen where my son's in second grade and i don't think he's had to write anything on a chalkboard yet but this is what i would imagine it would look like. i want nothing. i want nothing. i want nothing. your thoughts? >> yeah. really striking to see that. the fact that you had to remind yourself three times just in case you forgot it the first couple times was, you know, caused a lot of chuckles obviously. look, the president was seizing on the one piece of evidence, testimony today from gordon sondland that he finds helpful to him, which is that the recollection that they had a phone conversation on september 9th of this year in which gordon sondland asked him what do you want with ukraine? president, according to sondland, said i want nothing. you know, i don't want a quid pro quo. they're going to talk about that again and again and again because they find that the most exonerating piece of testimony they can. of course, it came after the whistle-

and peter baker chief white house correspondent for the new york times and the new book impeachment in american history. good evening and welcome to you all. counselor, barbara, i have to start with you, how big, how consequential or not is tonight's court ruling. >> the ruling with regard for the testimony is very significant. it doesn't really come as a surprise. but it's a very important step. what it says is that witnesses cannot hide behind this concept of absolute immunity. the witnesses do have to testify including him. as a practical matter the department of justice says it will appeal this decision so they have the ability to run out the clock on this opinion with regard to him but it could be used to empower other witnesses to testify in the impeachment proceeding if the house committee could wave it around. it's persuasive authority that suggests they have to testify when called. >> let's talk about rudy giuliani. we heard the president about his good friend and great crime fighter from this very city. has there been a change in rudy's standing that you have been able to det

joining me from capitol hill, geoff bennett, political analyst peter baker, and former federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york, jessica roth who is now a professor. so much to get to. geoff, have democrats decided that they have enough without bolton and kupperman's testimony, is is it that they think that it is a bad idea to drag it out and force them to testify, is it both? what is the strategy here? >> all of the above. since the very beginning, democrats have said that this impeachment inquiry needs to be fast and it needs to be focused. how democrats because they control the committees, they control the hearings which means that they control the focus of the narrative. they control the story that they are trying to build, the case they are bringing against president trump. what they have less control over is how fast this process moves. especially when you have these two potential key witnesses, charles kupperman and john bolton, essentially kicking to the courts this question of whether they need to comply. now, to help explain this to people because i will admit th

discussing our "new york times" political analyst peter baker and "daily beast" reporter and msnbc contributoroodruff swann. welcome to you both. interesting numbers there. peter, as support for impeachment among republicans, however, has now gone up to 18%. a lot of people saying that's an alarming number right there? >> obviously if you're the president, disturbing. you don't want to see any republicans in favor of impeachment. he's counting on his base to keep republican senators on his side and the stronger that number is for him among republicans, the easier his task is to keep things in a party line basis. he did manage to keep all house republicans on his side during this past week's vote. that's really important for him, easier for a republican to vote fon an inquiry saying i want to know what happened than for a republican to vote for impeachment itself down the road. less likely if at all likely to vote for eventual impeachment, meaning when you have an impeachment, if we have that vote will be along democratic and party lines. a big deal for the president that sets up a sfrenate tri

to defend the president against impeachment, the white house takes aim at its own aides or as peter baker'sdline on the front page of the "new york times" puts it, a white house now cannibalizing itself. >> now line up in a circle, ready, aim, yeah. that's the white house. >> peter joins us with his new reporting. "morning joe" is back in a moment. ♪ - [spokeswoman] meet the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. it can cause damage to the enamel. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. with pronamel repair, more minerals are able to enter deep into the enamel's surface. the fact that you have an opportunity to repair what's already been damaged...it's amazing. i think my go-to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. >>> prescription eyeglasses. >> they're reading glasses. >> did you ever try to wrest

peter baker join us this morning. up ahead, the 2020 democratic race gets real.is up, who is down, who walked away altogether as americans prepare to head to the first of the nation state in just 100 days. that's next. in just 100 days. that's next. ahhhh! giving one. the lexus december to rembember sales event lease the 2020 nx 300 for $329 a month for 27 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, for $329 a month for 27 months. hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ nyquifor your worst cold andrful relieflu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. strug

joining me how white house correspondent peter baker. let's start with bolton.that bolton is a wild card. he left the white house on bad terms with the president, but he's a lifetime republican. now that we know he doesn't want mick mulvaney in his same lawsuit, saying he's on trump's team, what does that tell you about what bolton has to say? >> i think it's very interesting and revealing. these are two men who were clashing while they were still in the white house, just feet away from each other. one in the southwest corner office and the other in the northwest corner. they were going head-to-head. the ukraine thing brought it tot to a head. john bolton thought the shadow foreign policy was out of bounds and unwise and he called it a drug deal that mulvaney was part of. so this has now spilled over into bolton's post presidential life in the form of this lawsuit in the form of them saying -- bolton is saying i don't want him to be part of my lawsuit. now, it doesn't mean that if he testified he would necessarily, you know, testify to things that would be bad f

thesed some of that on reporting that peter baker did on this issue in the new york times, excellent reporting. that that was not a prepared statement, it was a statement made in the campaign , you are about to have the republican national convention and president obama did not expect the syrians to use poison gas which they then did and gave us the choice, are we going to get in or get out and he basically decided not to get in but then eventually we had troops there and you have president trump announcing on a sunday night that we are yanking the thousand or troop -- thousand or so troops we have in this zone near the turkish border. that looks to be a little impulsive. i find the basis on which some people criticize both our recent democratic president and our current republican president on this issue. host: a couple things to share with you. the president talking about the wall, saying the wall is making a very big difference, even dems in the area are happy. this from kevin williamson in the new york post on the topic we were discussing this morning, he writes republicans are v

to do about it is compelling in that way and difficult witness for republicans to deal with. >> peter bakeread and the project about immigration. we'll talk about that. the search propelling pete bud judge and kamala harris finds herself, her campaign at a new low. s finds herself, her campaign at a new low. . now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs,

also helping us get through this day, the "new york times" peter baker and "washington post."♪ everybody needs somebody... ♪ ♪ find everything you need for the kids this holiday, with low prices and free shipping on millions of items at amazon. on a scale of one to five? wait... one to five? when it comes to feelings, it's more like five million. there's everything from happy to extremely happy. there's also angry. i'm really angry, clive! actually, really angry. thank you. and seat 36b angry. you're clive owen. and you're barefoot. yeah... there's also apprehension... ...regret... ...relief. oh and there's empathy... ah, i got this in zurich! actually, what's the opposite of empathy? but what if your business could understand what your customers are feeling... and then do something about it. you can turn disappointment into gratitude. clive, you got to try this. i can't i'm working. turn problems into opportunities. thanks drone. change the future of your business. change the whole experience. alright who wants to go again? i do! i do! ♪ i have a really good feeling about thi

i'm joined by peter baker. thank you. this is ominous because it talks about what happens to someone especially a public servant, a foreign service officer if you get in the way of this. >> we have seen from the beginning of trump presidency is this basically war with the government that the president presides over. from the very start he didn't trust them and expressed that. he compared them to nazis. he's used other phrases to describe civil servants and foreign service diplomats. i think this is sort of the ultimate culmination of that struggle that this has been going on for three years. they have served for decades. i think for three decades their job is to serve who ever happened to be president. when you get in the way of rudy giuliani and his campaign to pressure ukraine ambassador yovanovitch yovanovitch paid a price and that was stunning to a lot of people who worked for the state department over the last few months how that played out. >> there's no perfect parallels to watergate. they began to be a government

in to tell bus bill clinton's impeachment, peter baker joins us. he is chief white house correspondent at the "new york times"nd coauthor of "impeachment: an american history."rd on ricixon, timothy naftali joins us. he is a professor at new yorkor university andmer director of the richard nixon presidential library, and he also coauthored "impeachment: an american history." and for andrew hnson, brenda wineapple joins us. she is the author of "the impeachers," the trial of andren johnsothe dream of a just nation. thank you, all of you, for being here. d, peter, i'll start wi you. i want to go kind of backwards in time here. if you had to give sort of a 90-second history lesson on what the stry of bil bill clinton's impeachmt was about, how would do you that? >> well, it's hard to do in 90 seconds, but we'll give it a try. look, president clinton got caught up in a sex scandal. he was being accuse of of sexual harassment in ad lawsuit, an part of that lawsuit he was asked to testify about his relationship with other women. he lied about a renship w

peter baker's headline, talking about the cannibalization. >> cannibalization of the white house. >> they're now going to try to destroy the reputation of trumpist sondland, ambassador sondland, who gave $1 million. you have to wonder after today, is rudy giuliani next? >> sondland is a wealthy, successful guy. he got a good lawyer. from the time he amended the testimony and today is roger stone was convicted for lying to congress. this all came together for this guy to come clean and now the only thing republicans are left with is what the guy did, what president trump did was terrible but it's not impeachable. of course, that's not what trump wants to hear him say. >> ambassador sondland has entered the room. he has sat down. he will be sworn in and the precedings will begin. this is expected to be, after reading his opening statements, pretty damning testimony in the impeachment. >> remarkable day. you go back to the person where i read a story about his wife, telling the ambassador that he needed to protect himself, his family and his business. he had worked too hard to throw it

impeachment: an american history," to which he contributed with tim naftali, jeffrey engel, and peter bakerlearning that the early '70s were a bad era for television earphones that stuck out on camera and that mr. chancellor preferred copy on paper to the teleprompter in front of him, tell us about the man -- i heard a historian talk about ruckelshaus as a patriot's patriot. tell us about the mark he leaves on american society. >> that's a great description. he was part of a vanished breed. he was a moderate republican. he was of the rockefeller, prescott bush school of republicans who believed in fiscal probity but wanted to protect the environment and wanted to protect the rule of law. what i would hope tonight and going into tomorrow is that every self-described republican supporter of donald trump would read that obituary very carefully and imaginatively project themselves to that ultimate moment of reckoning. do you want said of you that when the constitution was under ferocious attack you stood in the breach and stood for the work of madison, hamilton, and jay, or do you want to be se

syrian government would be a red line, and i based some of that on the extensive reporting that peter baker did on this issue in the new york times, an excellent reporter, and he, you know, it seems that that was not a prepared statement. it was a statement made in a campaign environment. you were just having or about to have the republican national convention and president obama clearly didn't expect the syrians to use poison gas, which they then did and gave us a choice, are we going to get in or get out, and he basically decided not to get in, but eventually we had troops there under president trump. you had president trump announcing on a sunday night saying hey we're taking the thousand or so troops that we have in this zone near the turkish border. that looks to be a little impulsive too. so i find a basis on which some people could criticize both our recent democratic president and our current republican president on this issue. >> a couple things to share with you, a short while ago the president @ real donald trump again talking about the wall saying the wall is making a very big d

and there's the peter baker front page story. democrats detect watergate echo. what a time to be alive, right? i mean, we are living through history. free antacids and melatonin for everyone to get us through the end of this. today may have been the final impeachment hearing for president trump. it was at least the final one that is on the schedule right now. we're going to talk more about that later in terms of whether this was the last one for sure. what's going to happen next here, how this is going to move forward. if you thought, looking at today's headlines if you thought ambassador gordon sondland's testimony in the hearing yesterday, if you thought that's as bad as it could get in confirming a quid pro quo, directly implicating the president and ordering that scheme and directly implicating a whole bunch of very senior officials including the vice president as being in on that scheme, i mean if you thought yesterday's testimony was terrible for whatever defense they are ultimately going to try to mount in this impeachment, today there was another hearing

peter baker, it's hard to put a lot of it into your main bar analysis pieces.hugest story i should say this week of the huge stories? >> that's a great question. look, what we're seeing already just from three witnesses is that the facts set that we had begun to understand was all coming together. republicans are going to say and they're correct that these three witnesses didn't speak with the president. they don't have first-hand knowledge of the president in a direct sense. but as the building blocks the case they're making they've sort of laid out the set of events. it's more than just a sinkal phone call, a whole series of events including and most powerfully involving masha yovanovitch today. what does that add up to, we'll see. i don't know if anybody's minds has changed. that's an important factor to take into consideration. as democrats want to build their case for an eventual vote they seem to be heading toward by the end of next month, you can see the end of the road for them. they're going to impeach him for bribery they'll call it or abuse of power

tonight peter baker reported tillerson said, quote, ambassador haley was rarely a participant in my manyis not in a position to know what i may or may not have said to the president. in response to the new book kelly told "the washington post" that if giving trump, quote, the best and most open legal and ethical staffing advice from across the government so comake an informed decision is working against trump then guilty as charged. not exactly a denial. >> absolutely not. nothing close to a denial. either what tillerson said or kelly. >> i think the conversation happened. do you believe it happened? >> i do. i think this is what they both wanted to do with their jobs but were unable to do. they failed at their jobs. and haley is calling them out. but i think they win as much as she does. >> you're from the south. i'll ask you an evangelical question. can he keep the evangelical support and bump pence off and put her in there as vp if he has a woman opponent he wants to match? >> look. if all that donald trump has done so far has not cost him the evangelical vote, then of course he can.