tv MTP Daily MSNBC November 13, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PST
power. they ought to be equally before starting, protect yourself enjop impeachable. and i think it drives home the from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. idea that if the president is are you doing enough? not removed from office over ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. this, there is no reason to think he won't do it again. >> final thought? to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, >> couldn't agree more. he -- he can't see the difference between his own visit xarelto.com. personal interests and the country's. he puts his own interest first. he -- he thinks his call was perfect because he doesn't -- he doesn't perceive there's any interest that overrides his. >> all right. that does it for us. my thanks to matt miller, george conway, paul butler. at outback, steak & oh no, it's gone.ck. claire mccass till. most of all, to you for phew, it's back with lobster mac & cheese. it's gone again. watching. that does it for us. oh, it's back with shrimp now! "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. us. "mtp daily" with chuck todd steak & lobster starting at only $15.99. starts now hurry in before these three are gone again. outback steakhouse. we're oscar mayer deli fresh your very first sandwich,m... your mammoth masterpiece. welcome to wednesday. and...whatever this was. not just any wednesday. because we make our meat it's "meet the press daily" and with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. good evening i'm chuck todd here in new york. make every sandwich count well you've been watching with oscar mayer deli fresh.
history for just the fourth time in american history, a brz is facing formal impeachment proceedings in the united states house of representatives. today, the gravity of the now, there is one witness. allegations against the president, the evidence supporting them and the gop's one witness that they won't fears, they were all on full bring in front of us. they won't bring in front of the display at this first public impeachment hearing. american people. two career nonpartisan diplomats and that's the guy who started delivered testimony that largely it all. seemed to corroborate the crux the whistle-blower. >> i say to my colleague, i'd be of the democratic allegations that president trump essentially glad to have the person who used the power of his office to started it all come in and try to get ukraine to testify. president trump is welcome to take a seat right there. investigate his political rivals. and to help him personally in the 2020 re-election campaign. >> welcome back. now, the democrats' star witness well, that was one of the more intriguing counterpoints there was bill taylor. between republican jim jordan the acting ambassador to ukraine who delivered compelling and and democrat peter welch during highly-credible testimony, today's hearing. starting with a 41-minute opening statement. with me now is democratic congresswoman of alabama. that laid out in stark and she is a member of the house intelligence committee, also meticulous detail his firsthand vice chair of the house ways and account of what it was like to means committee. congresswoman, given what you watch what was this regular and irregular process, as he called thought today would be versus what it is, what do you think? it. and what was essentially an do you feel as if you've laid abuse of power, at least in his out this case for mind, unfold around him. in his testimony, he also public to understand better today than they did yesterday?
revealed newly discovered evidence tying the president to the pressure campaign to get ukraine to investigate his political rivals by way of an that we allow transparency to really reign. overheard phone call the day the american public deserves to after president trump's july know the testimony and i think the testimony that was delivered 25th call with ukraine's today by very credible patriots was devastating to this administration and to this president where mr. trump asked presidency. for the investigation into the what we heard is a long and we bidens. take a listen. >> investigations was a term ambassadors volker and sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to -- and heard very arduous and to investigations of burisma and convincing argument about presidential abuse of power. i think that it's important for the bidens. last friday, a member of my my constituents to know that we staff told me of events that all take this very seriously and occurred on july 26th in the following the facts where they presence of my staff, at a lead us. i haven't prejudged at all. restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. but this was pretty damning and i thought the evidence is piling the member of my staff could up. >> okay. you said you haven't prejudged hear president trump on the here. phone asking ambassador sondland what is it about the evidence about the investigations. you're seeing that you're saying to yourself, we got the election ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians now less than a year away but were ready to move forward. this is so egregious he has to following the call with be removed from office. president trump, the member of walk me through that line of thinking. my staff asked ambassador
sondland what president trump for you. thought about ukraine. >> well, i thought that the testimony today of ambassador ambassador sondland responded that president trump cares more taylor where he said that there about the investigations of was not one regular channel biden, which giuliani was pressing for. >> i take it the import of that where -- that our foreign policy is he cares more about that than with ukraine was being but there he does about ukraine. was an irregular, an informal >> yes, sir. >> now, moments ago, the channel that was actually going president told reporters that he against the policies that would did not recall the phone call actually benefit the american with gordon sondland. during questioning with people. and i think, for me, where the democratic counsel, taylor spill crossing of the rubicon occurs spelled out just how consequential he thought the is really this president asking president's conduct was. >> ambassador taylor, in your for a favor. decades of military service and making statements just because you say them out loud doesn't diplomatic service representing make them not true and not -- the united states around the not -- not actionable. world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid i think that -- i -- i really conditioned on the personal or think that, for me, it was just political interests of the president of the united states? the testimony of taylor today that i thought was really >> no, mr. goldman, i have not. compelling. and i think that when you talk >> now, at times, republicans to a soldier, and we just and their counsel struggled a accelerated veterans day and you bit at this hearing. taylor and george kent, the say if you're going to war and deputy assistant secretary of your commander in chief withholds valuable weaponry,
state who testified alongside valuable and -- and does so taylor today large ly wouldn't by -- because of his own engage with some republican personal agenda and not that of theories about the case. the public good or the troops, which make up the bulk of the what is that? is that actionable? president's defense at least i would say yes. i would say it's treasonous and right now. now, republicans tried to wall off the president by noting much i definitely would think that of taylor's knowledge of the that soldier would be court quid pro quo scheme came from marshalled. and i think that alone is, to ambassador gordon sondland who spoke with trump directly about me, is something that the it. american people can understand. >> you had said to me a couple >> so what i'm wondering is, where'd you get this clear understanding? sundays ago that you -- you >> as i testified, mr. jordan, believed in this more narrow focus of this impeachment this came from ambassador proceeding. focused on what you've seen here with ukraine, you had not -- you sondland. >> ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told had been somebody that withheld mr. morrison that i conveyed a call for impeachment unlike many of your democratic this message on september 1st, colleagues. you withheld it until this 2019, in connection with vice ukraine incident. but let me ask you this. are you at all concerned that president pence's visit to your case is too narrow? meaning that it's not -- that warsaw and ukrainian president there are bread crumb trails zelensky. you just told me this is where that lead you to other countries and other places that a longer you got your clear understanding. i've seen church prayer chains investigation might uncover even that are easier to understand more things? are you concerned you might be than this. >> well, jordan's performance short circuiting this there if he's trying to confuse investigation?
>> well, you know, i think that people was brilliant but he actually seemed to undermine the just within this particular president there a bit. incident, we also have an because those criticisms obstruction of congress. arguably only make gordon this administration is telling sondland's public testimony next its, you know, personnel not to week must-see tv. come before congress with a but the big question at the heart of everything in these proceedings is whether enough of the public will see the conduct subpoena. what is that, if not obstruction in these kinds of hearings as so of justice? so i think that within this discussion of this particular egregious that the president ukraine incident, which i think sho was totally egregious and can't should be disqualified from seeking re-election. be the new normal, it cannot be that he should be ousted from office. and that is something we're the new normal. going to deal with as we go i think that my -- my throughout the show. let me bring in garrett haake constituents understand right and wrong. right now. and clearly, you can't listen to also here, peter baker, also an the compelling testimony that we msnbc contributor. garrett, let me start with you. heard today from kent, mr. kent, obviously, we got news during as well as ambassador taylor and the hearing and during the not understand that what the president did was wrong. hearing we found we got a new now, the question we have to ask ourselves and the question that deposition scheduled. will be before the senate, is it we've got -- we now know more impeachable? and i would just say to everyone about what to expect next week. how do democrats feel today? listening that we understand and how do the republicans feel? right and wrong. and do we really want to not >> democrats i spoke to afterwards feel good about today but caution that this is a long reprimand a president whose extreme use of -- abuse of process. they think they have to keep
people invested and they have to power -- for his own personal keep people listening. a lot of the arguments presented purposes to interfere in our by republicans today, for elections -- i represent the 7th congressional district of example, that some of this alabama where people died, information that ambassador taylor was talking about was fought, bled for the right to vote. and we should not have a second or third-hand, they think they can knock down as they go president that is openly further and further along. for example, gordon sondland, encouraging foreign interference in our elections. who will appear next wednesday >> let me -- >> that, to me, is wrong. in an open hearing is the direct connection to president trump. >> if you -- you use the word also, the questions about when reprimand here. an impeachment without ukrainians knew that the aid was being held up. that's something that another conviction. is that a sufficient reprimand? witness, ms. cooper, could speak >> look, i think that the -- to when she has her open hearing whether it's impeachable or not is going to be -- or whether it also next week. and you mentioned the gets him removed or not will be depositions of new witnesses. a decision that will be up to the big bombshell today from the senate. and, frankly, i think that as taylor that one of his staffers had overheard this conversation this evidence continues to pile up, it's becoming much more between sondland and the president. that staffer will be deposed on egregious to me and it's friday. reaching a heightened level that so we're moving towards i think will be impossible for answering all those questions. the house not to take very republicans for their part i think there were two lines of seriously this obstruction of their counterquestioning that were particularly interesting. justice, this abuse of power as arguably, the most effective was when they leaned into the impeachable. >> congresswoman terry, democrat expertise of these two witnesses and had them talk about how from alabama as you just stated yourself, the 7th district corrupt ukraine has been in the there. thank you for coming on and past. and to try to set up their sharing your views. i appreciate it. >> thank you.
actual expertise as folks who >> let's dive into the other side of the aisle. and the republican defense, know about ukrainian corruption to make an argument that any which began at today's hearing reticence on the part of the with congressman devin nunes president to send money into a attacking the credibility of the corrupt country was just smart proceedings as a whole. >> i've noted before the politics on the president's part. the other strategy that they employed that i think we'll see again and again and again that i democrats have a long habit of found interesting was you heard accusing republicans of offenses a little bit from jim jordan and they themselves are committing. what we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance from his counsel, mr. castor. they are not trying to change staged by the democrats. minds so much as they're trying ambassador taylor and mr. kent, to convince people to change the i'd like to welcome you here. channel. the more this is confusing, the i'd like to congratulate you for more is reminds people of 2016 and just more partisan passing the democrats star bickering, the less inclined chamber editions held for the folks who might be on the fence last weeks in the basement of the capitol. about impeachment are to move the democrats way. it seems you agreed witting or so i think we are seeing outlines of a strategy here from unwittingly to participate in a drama. both parties that we'll continue to see at least through the next but the main performance, the week of open hearings. >> peter baker, the big question russia hoax, has ended and i had in all this watching the republicans here was as much as you've been cast in the low-rent i think at times that you could ukrainian sequel. say the republicans were being >> joining me now is republican effective in at least creating a smoke screen, but knowing the congressman tom reid of new president, he's not going to be
york. he is a member of house ways and happy that there was republicans that were accepting the sum of means committee. congressman reid, i know you weren't involved in questioning or any of the strategy behind the premises of the arguments how -- how the questioning was that the two diplomats were determined today, but let me ask you this. from what you heard in the making. >> the president, as you say, has been upset that republicans testimony from the state are arguing process more than substance. right? in other words, they have been saying the democrats are being department officials, are you more concerned today about the unfair as part of a witch hunt. president's conduct? mind you, these are arguments he or less? >> less. himself makes, of course. to be perfectly honest with you, but they haven't been chuck. i -- as i've always said going republicans for the most part been saying the president didn't into this, i'm looking for that do these things or that he didn't do something that was smoking gun evidence of an wrong. those who have addressed that impeachable, high crime, have said, look, it was treasonous type of charge that inappropriate but it might not be impeachable. would warrant impeachment and well, you saw a little of that today. removal of a dually elected jim jordan did kind of attack it a little bit more frontally in a president. and i just don't see that. you -- you -- you may try to connect the dots otherwise but i way that probably pleased just don't see that high crime president trump if he was watching. he says he wasn't but he tweeted evidence that they're talking a lot about it during the hours about so convincingly in their leading up to president mind on the other side. >> does it matter to you if erdogan's visit. and i think that he would want republicans there to be even direct evidence is produced that more aggressive than they were today. that's the reason why jim jordan shows the president directed was added to the committee at this? this phone call, all of it. that it was -- because there's the last minute to give that been one of the defenses said, sort of energy to the defense well, the president, this may that the others don't bring at have been gordon sondland and the same level. rudy giuliani.
you're right. the president didn't know as i think they create some much. does that matter to you? confusion, muddy the waters, and >> i think the whole theory of the case is what's important to say there are other ways to look me and, you know, what i see as at this than the way the democrats are presenting it. a theory of the case that says >> so, garrett, do -- do the presidents investigating corruption on the issue of republicans at all -- are they looking at this -- are they ukraine inside the country with hunter biden and joe biden, who regretting that the white house isn't cooperating enough? is a sitting vice president. that in on its face is a do they want -- do they feel like they need some sympathetic legitimate inquiry. corruption is a legitimate witnesses to the president now? inquiry when taxpayer dollars is this going to -- is it are being given to a foreign possible they sort of change country, you want to ask the their mindset and say, you know questions about corruption. and, you know, from my what, why don't you bring mick mulvaney in because at least perspective being a defense that's somebody that might try attorney at times in a courtroom if you want to do the analogy, to tell his story in the best when you have a legitimate possible light for the president. argument to be made for what the >> well, look, mulvaney would have all these issues about action was based upon, you are presumed innocent in america and privilege even if democrats this rush to judgment and could get him to sit down in the conviction by the other side first place. so i think that's unlikely. just shows you i think this is but republicans are optimistic about politics more than it's they'll get slightly friendlier about substantive impeachment witness performances next week efforts. >> there is a lot of things in from kurt volker and tim washington that are always about morrison in particular. remember, they were both on the politics at some point. you can't really undo that at republican witness list. all. folks that the republicans had well, let's go to the heart of asked for. the matter here. i mean, do you believe -- do you and volker in particular is a really interesting figure in all believe the president -- it was
of this to me. inappropriate for the president he's somebody who from the day to use the investigations as he came in and gave his leverage to the aid you guys and deposition, republicans said release this whole transcript. the legislative branch had this is a guy who exonerates the president. and in his transcript, he is already deemed worthy of them certainly much more diplomatic and much more careful about how receiving? >> when the executive branch is raising the issue of corruption, he describes the president's actions. i think republicans will lean i think that's a legitimate question to ask. the aid did flow through. heavily into volker's view on that's the good thing. the american people are going to all this, which was that he was trying to be a bridge between be able to judge this at the end of the day and that's a good these policy channels and that thing. but, you know, the other issue i he, an experienced ukraine hand think is being lost in this himself, didn't see anything conversation is we are making impeachment a political tool in wrong here. the toolbox that is just tearing you heard some republicans planting the seeds of this today this country apart and tearing asking the two witnesses today washington, d.c. further apart. whether they thought volker was we shouldn't be doing that now. an expert, whether they thought and now to have impeachment as he was somebody who they respected. another tool in the political you heard both of them say yes. toolbox is very dangerous in my so look to that volker testimony opinion. to be where republicans seek >> i heard that argument from the other side of the aisle 20 refuge in the form of a years ago when i was covering another impeachment -- i mean, friendlier witness. >> peter, i want to tap your in fairness, it is -- it is -- long-time expertise. you were stationed in moscow as whenever anybody on one side or the other and -- and a -- as a reporter. unfortunately, congressman, a were you surprised at how little lot of viewers just loose he's russia was brought up? because in some ways, this that because it's his side. entire pressure campaign, if you >> that's what we should learn the lesson of the clinton will, it's due to the russians. and there's this, of course, impeachment.
you know, shame on them. i don't support the clinton open we don't know how much of impeachment and that should have been a lesson. i mean, we put the country the -- of president trump's through hell in regards to that negative view of ukraine has impeachment inquiry. come directly from vladimir we're doing it today in regards putin. >> no, of course. this is absolutely tied into russia. to the trump impeachment. and you have an election. there's no way you can separate these things. the people are the ones we republicans of course are making should be entrusting and this the point that it's tied to arrogance of washington, d.c. that says we know better than russia and the mueller investigation in the sense that the election results of the this is a democrats scratches american people, i think we're really going down a slippery for a low-rent version of what slope here with impeachment. they couldn't make stick over >> do you think the white house the summer to use the phrase i would be better served by think one of them used today. letting some of these folks testify? but broadly speaking, you cannot that it makes it harder to make look at the ukraine situation the case that the democrats without understanding it's -- aren't giving you everything it's -- its issue right now with that you want when you're not russia. russia invaded ukraine in 2014. providing witnesses that you believe could be exculpatory? should they be providing more exculpatory witnesses? seized its territory and continues to this day to supply >> when you're talking about oversight and the roles in oversight, i think sharing that information and complying is separatists who are fighting a something to do. but when you're talking about low-grade geurilla war in the eastern part of the country. the security aid that was impeachment, over turning the suspended by the president in dually-elected decision of the american people. you know, you're going to have order to leverage apparently this investigation was to go to that separation of powers that defend themselves against rightfully needs to exist. russia. and this is one of the things that's at the heart of our bill taylor really brought home democracy and sustainability of in a visceral way other our government is to have that
checks and balances and that witnesses haven't. there's really ground separation of powers. consequences to this. he sat there at the bridge, at so, you know, if they were the front lines and saw, you know, soldiers who are defending pursuing oversight and not their country and he thought the impact of this politics has, you impeachment. that's a different conversation. >> yeah. i don't understand what the difference is between that know, real consequences for them argument you're making. on the ground. i mean, the -- in order to make so you're right. it's absolutely tied into the decision about impeachment, russia. it's tied into putin. in order to -- which is it's tied into trump's essentially a grand jury relationship with putin. putin, no doubt, trash talks indictment, you do an investigation to get that. that's what they're doing here. ukraine every chance he gets so part of what they're doing is with -- with trump and that has clearly impacted his view of the oversight. they haven't voted on country. >> garrett haake and peter baker. thank you both. impeachment yet. i know you both are on a crash >> yeah but, chuck, but oversight doesn't result in the turning back of the will of the on some deadlines so i will get american people from a dually-held election. you away from the tv cameras. you are then destabilizing the joining me now here in studio, american democracy because now andrew wiesman, former senior people are going to say what? i voted for my president who was fbi official. he is also now an nbc news legal dually elected and the power analyst. official in washington wants to andrew, welcome. i think. we'll see how much you like it overturn that election. >> you must be upset. the white house has made a here. also here, nbc news decision not to cooperate with any investigations even before this was an impeachment inquiry. correspondent carol lee and so i understand your defense contributor jon hortz. and joining us from washington, about impeachment but then what you're saying is what the how former maryland congresswoman donna edwards. okay. carol, let me start with you and i is -- the white house's behavior
before the impeachment inquiry is something you won't defend. start with certainly what bill taylor was there to do -- i'm >> well, and that is something i'm concerned with just as i was going to play full screen -- concerned when we were investigating president obama and the executive privileges first sound byte, guys, the that were exerted when we were going through that process. control room, of the question of so i think that constant battle and that is something that i whether ukraine felt pressure would share concern about. when we're doing our oversight from the president. take a listen. role, when we have checks and >> did you come to understand balances in our congressional role, i believe congress has lost its leadership role in that from your conversations with the ukrainians or other washington, d.c. congress needs to exert itself individuals that ukraine felt back as an equal branch of pressure to initiate these government and i would agree with that concern about the issue of oversight. investigations because of the conditionality of the white >> i believe there are 430 house meeting and the security members that i think would agree assistance? with that statement these days. >> mr. goldman, here's what i know. congressman tom reid. republican from new jersey. thanks for coming on and sharing i got several questions, other officials got several questions your views. as well, from ukrainians asking appreciate that. >> from new york. don't insult me like that. >> sorry. i'm on the wrong side of the river myself today. about the security assistance. no offense to my friends in new york. good to be with you. so what i know is the security we'll be right back. assistance was very important to what happens next in this inquiry plus, oh, something else the ukrainians. odd and historic happened today they had begun to hear from in washington, as well. we're going to bring you that in a minute. s well we're going to bring you thaint a minute
ambassador sondland that the i was on the fence about changing security assistance was not from a manual to an electric toothbrush. going to come until the investigations were pursued. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. what i heard from the defense she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. minister, what the senators, go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head what senator johnson and senator murphy heard in their removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. conversation with president and unlike sonicare, oral-b zelensky was the clear concern, is the first electric toothbrush brand the urgent concern that the accepted by the ada ukrainians had about the for its effectiveness and safety. security assistance. what an amazing clean! >> carol, i started with that i'll only use an oral-b! excerpt for this plain reason. oral-b. bill taylor was brought up there brush like a pro. by the democrats because they i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" believed he could narrate basically the nut graph of this story. did he? of course i have- >> not in that sound byte. ever since i started renting from national. i wouldn't say. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... he -- it was a little -- if you're watching this, you know, ...and choose any car in the aisle. and paying attention, which a lot of people aren't. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. actually, i asked one of my philly friends who are suburbs at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. exactly the types of minds that looking good, patrick. would need to hear to change and they're saying they haven't i know. turned on the tv all day. what hearing? did you testify? (vo) go national. go like a pro. what did you do? >> so the clips are going to matter. >> the clips will matter.
and -- but that argument, you know, focusing so much on the aid kind of -- it mirks -- it makes it murky. focus so much on the aid and ukraine's need for the aid. ukraine has been asking for this aid for years. the trump administration gave it to ukraine. the obama administration would not give it to ukraine. that's really not the issue if you're trying to argue a case for people to remove the president from office. you would think that he would focus more on is about what exactly the president did wrong walkabout wednesdays are back! in leveraging that aid. >> andrew, you did a great thing get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, to us on the special on nbc. fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - you said as a prosecutor, you have to think about the end at all for just $10.99. the beginning. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. and that's what you thought outback steakhouse. aussie rules. might have been missing today from adam schiff. explain what -- what -- what i was trying to -- >> so i think the -- the key wednesdays are for outback. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, thing that if you are the democrats you have to think as well as all the things you want to do. about is where are you going to be at the end? because when you're ready for what comes next, what is it that you're going to be asking people to really care the only direction is forward. about? and you need to find out and make the case for why should
there be impeachment where that could allow hackers devices into your home.ys people vote to convict as and like all doors, they're safer when locked. opposed to acquit now? that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, and not let it sort of go to the devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. election. >> the fierce urgency of now. >> exactly. which helps keep people outside >> explain what that is. from accessing your passwords, what would you have done that credit cards and cameras. they didn't? >> so i agree with carol that and people inside one of the key things is if you from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. focus on ukraine as the end all and be all, which of course xfi advanced security. these witnesses would. if it's connected, it's protected. they're the state department call, click, or visit a store today. witnesses. they came off, well, if i were in the state department now, i'd be very, very proud of them. but that's not what the democrats needed to do. the democrats i think needed to focus on that this was about election interference in our election. and then the more times if i were a democrat, the more times you can analogize this to watergate, the better. because that was election interference that also didn't work and there wasn't a single person in watergate who was thinking it didn't matter, it's not important that the president was breaking into the dnc to cheat.
so here, what the president was trying to do if you're the democrats is what they're saying is the president wanted to get ukraine to open an investigation president of the united states so that trump could use that in abused his power and invited the -- >> no, not investigation. foreign interference in our a public statement. elections or if he sought to >> exactly. >> we don't know if he wanted condition, coerce, extort, or the investigation. we know he wanted the statement. bribe an ally into conducting >> absolutely. absolutely. that would -- it's telling that investigations to aid his he said it's really important election campaign and did so by that it be public. i don't really care whether you withholding official acts, a do the investigation. white house meeting, or hundreds what's important is it be a public announcement of the of millions of dollars of needed investigation. >> so, john, it seems the military aid, must we simply get republicans, if you were looking at them to try to combat what over it? is this what americans should the democrats presented, they did a terrible job. now expect from their president? but i guess if you're looking at if this is not impeachable conduct, what is? it -- if they're trying to make a political argument, then maybe >> welcome back. andrew, carol, john, and donna they did pretty well. what would you -- how would you assess it? are back with us. >> i actually think they did well and i'm surprised because i done d donna edwards, i want to start with you. my takeaway from both tom reid didn't expect them to stage as, and terry is this. i would say, peculiarly neither one of them said it this way but when i heard the word convincing. so what jim jordan said was reprimand, it triggered there were 55 days between july something.
if there is a middle ground, a 25th when trump had the phone lot of lawmakers would take it. call and september 11th when the a way to punish the president without removing him and leaving it to the voters. aid to ukraine was unsuspended but the fact of the matter is we don't have a middle ground. and was released. but that's what i heard in there and that in that time, nothing in between the lines in a million ways. what did you hear? happened. that's -- that's what he says. >> well, you know, i was -- i listened to that really the ukrainians didn't know. carefully. we don't have a middle ground no one did anything. nothing mattered. and, in fact, the constitution now, i don't think that's true. actually contemplates that on but if you are putting on two issues that involve treason, cases, the case is look, in the bribery, and high crimes and mi misdemeanors, there is no middle end, no harm, no foul. the aid went through. ground when it comes to holding we have the relationship we the president of the united states accountable for his behavior. and i think adam schiff was have. right. so -- so -- but when you right. we need to focus onha the contrast that with this very president did and make a complex thing the democrats are doing and i think mistakenly in determination that may have been terms of making a public case of within the scope of what the constitution envisions. interweaving the problem of how and, you know, there's no out trump conducts foreign policy, here. it's about impeachment. including having two tracks on >> however, if you -- if -- if ukraine with rudy giuliani and these two other ambassadors the democrats got to a place versus the normal state where they proposed something department channels.
whatever that is, and it's bad, short of impeachment, that is it is not impeachable. he is the president of the some form of censure, they could united states. he can have a second track in really put republicans in a bit diplomacy if he wants to. what you need to focus on is of a box because you could do this for a couple of weeks. what he did that was wrong. you could have maybe the public getting convinced that something that was wrong in a way that everybody can understand. quid pro quo is wrong. happened. >> my guess is you'll start to see some creeping at least with bad policy is not wrong, is not independents. >> yeah. like something for which a -- or -- or if they make a really the only president in history bad showing, it could go the other way. but let's say then -- are you should be removed from office. then putting republicans in the there have been plenty of position of having to defend presidents who have pursued terrible policies and it's up to trump absent this thing where the american people to vote them you say, well, they're going to out of office. overturn the results of an >> donna, you've been in that election? then you put them in a very room. you've been in oversight uncomfortable position, i think, hearings. you've been on the other side of where they might be tempted to this. how did your colleagues do? former colleagues do? take the vote. but then they know trump is >> well, i have to tell you. going to cut their throats. i mean, i think i wasprised so they're in the worst possible at how disciplined they were. i mean, if you listen to position. >> cutting the throats is the democrats both in the questioning and tamer way of what you were describing. we all knew where you were going case, they were far more and it wasn't throat.yeah. disciplined than they've been in previous hearings. >> carol. they did not take the republican >> yeah, that's the thing. bait sending them down every look, i think in your interview
rabbit hole that was thrown out with the congressman, it showed that there is some by jim jordan and devin nunes and the rest of them. squeamishness, both about and i think that that held them endorsing the president's conduct for just historical in good stead. i would say that there are a lot purposes or precedent setting of holes that need to be filled purposes. and also, just the whole idea in and i'm sure that we're going that congress basically has been to get some of that from the neutered and is not as -- being other witnesses. and this phone call that treated as an equal branch of ambassador taylor testified to government. the problem with the republicans that his staffer overheard where is exactly what you said. trump -- there's nothing -- he you for the first time really says it's a perfect call. implicate the president directly. it has to be a perfect defense. and so the argument that there's no room for any sort of republicans had about intent, censure or anything of him or that question is going to be answered. else he'll really reign down on >> you're nodding your head you. >> let me go back to what you here. there's a lot of nodding. said at the beginning, andrew. >> yeah because it is -- the if you were prosecuting this most significant thing that came case, who would you assume your audience is? out of the hearing today. >> you know, there are different it raises the stakes for gordon ways of looking at it. sondland's testimony to level you know, i'm not a political that it was already high. consultant. i don't do polls. >> think that guy gets any sleep anymore? this is one where i assume what i mean, everything keeps -- they are doing is playing, you >> mr. holmes. >> it goes right to the know, down the road. president and the point of that they're trying to have
sbept, one of the arguments we've seen a lot of arguments put out by republicans and people who actually care about discarded and the president facts are going to listen to undermining them and they change on a daily basis. and one of them was you don't this and this -- this -- know what's in the -- you know, whatever percentage of the getting in the mind of the population that actually can be president. the president's mindset. well, this phone call suggests convinced, that aren't sort of the hardened sides are going to actually say, you know what, they can get a sense of what the president's mindset was. this is really beyond the pale. and not only that, but when he hung up the phone with the we don't want this going president, he said rather seems forward. casually like, yeah, he cares >> she's an interesting person more about giuliani and the to talk to of course because she bidens than -- is a democratic congresswoman in >> andrew, before you jump in an extremely red state. here. i want to play actually >> she made it ver clear two something because i'm -- i'm guessing this statement from weeks ago she was not for taylor that i'm about to play is impeachment mueller. it wasn't until ukraine. she's been very careful. her and doug jones have been going to provide quite a bit of very careful about this. >> so we're having this where potential questions for mr. people are, you know, alexandria sondland. it's full screen number four, guys, where taylor sort of explains what sondland might be able to tell the committee. ocasio-cortez is not squeamish about impeachment. >> ambassador sondland said that blue state democrats in the house are not squeamish about impeachment. if president zelensky did not similarly, red state -- clear things up in public, we >> right. would be at a stalemate. he wasn't going to endorse trump's behavior.
he -- he began that again by >> no, he's not. but on the other hand, red state repeating this is not a quid pro republicans, to get them to -- quo. >> with his eyes open. >> to get them to convict. but if the -- if president that is the nature of the zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a polarization we face, but there stalemate. and what i understood for that are those 40 democrat s who won seats in 2018 in districts that meaning, the meaning of republicans formerly held. stalemate was the security they're going to be in an assistance would not come. >> so even though he said the words there were no quid pro uncomfortable position unless the case gets harder. quo, he then went on to say, but >> this is where last week's the security assistance will not elections gave democrats come unless these investigations are done. is that what you're saying? confidence. >> andrew, carol, john, and >> my understanding, that's what was meant by stalemate. donna, thank you all. >> gordon sondland. what a tremendous quartet to >> so a lot of sleepless nights between now and when he testifies and i'd like to be a have sprain aexplain all this. fly on the wall between him and his counsel. i'm going to be back with the other big story that took place i suspect he is going to be very in washington. it was sort of amazing, and i'm interested in what the staffer sorry we haven't been able to focus on it sooner. testifies to. it's the president. i think also if the president is it's turkey, and it's the actually committed today to saying that he does not recall president playing mediator with republican senators. that phone call, huge mistake. we'll be right back. ack. >> why is that?
>> because he now can't rebut but with less carbon footprint. it. he has now said i don't remember can we have both? at bp, we're working every day that phone call. so you're going to have sondland to make energy that's cleaner and better. testifying to it. you're going to have a staffer and we see possibilities everywhere. testifying to it. if he doesn't like their testimony, he's going to have to we have some great new ideas that we want say, oh now i remember that i didn't say that. to present to you today. >> because can he hide behind [son]: who are you talking to? executive privilege in this and [son]: that guy's scary. not say i'm not going to reveal the first item on the list is selecting the contents of my conversations a chairman for the... for the advisory board with the president? >> can a staffer? >> no, can gordon sondland? what's this? >> too late at this point. as well as use the remaining... i think that sondland, child care options run out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. especially because remember sondland has already said gets off the phone and actually repeats, you know, makes comments about it. i think it's way too late for guaranteed monthly income for life. him to say that. >> sondland feels like it's an important moment. >> this is the vitally important through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence thing, which is this can go on gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. the way it's going on where democrats are going to decide that he should be impeached. from using feedback to innovate... republicans are going to decide he shouldn't be impeached. there will be a vote. to introducing products faster... democrats will impeach him. republicans will acquit him in the senate and we will have this to managing website inventory... national stalemate on this. unless there is this piece of and network bandwidth. bridging material that
demonstrates that the president giving you a nice big edge over your competition. himself said or did something that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. that goes beyond what was in the july 25th thing where he says either do this or we're not -- you don't let a cold ruin your day. or the aid's not going anywhere. you take dayquil severe liquicaps >> right. >> right? and crush it. because then you can construct a narrative according to which that was the policy and then they got scared. something happened. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, they heard that there was a whistle-blower and that the -- power through your day, medicine. and that the house and the senate were asking questions. >> do you think that moves a republican, though? >> well, no. >> or moots opinion? >> could it? >> yeah. >> i think if you really have extensive -- more extensive -- information suggesting that, it could make some -- i don't think it gets you to 67 to convict. but you could change the dynamic. and have the public turn on trump a bit in a way that it won't from this. >> donna edwards, it -- the -- the last comment before i'm going to try to sneak a break in here. and it's just how much should congressional democrats be
thinking about what andrew sort of implied here? is what's the remedy? what's the end game here? how much do democrats in that house committee need to be thinking about, okay, we've got -- the case we've got to that's ensure max protein, make has got to be so convincing, it's for removal with high protein and 1 gram sugar. from office? it's a sit-up, banana! >> well, i've long believed that bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. given the stakes and the whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, importance of checking executive and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. branch and the president's ♪ do you recall, not long ago behavior, that democrats should not be focused on removal. ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ the purpose of impeachment is ♪ all around the wind blows not for the purposes of removal. ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ that is going to come and i think that they've got to let ♪ blow a kiss into the sun the evidence take them, demonstrate it to the american ♪ we need someone to lean on people, and then put it over in the hands of the senate in the ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ face of damning testimony and ♪ ♪ you know republicans are going to have to ask themselves do ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ they want future presidents behaving like this in office? and i think the answer to the american public is going to be wh(fake gagging noises) no. >> all right. as i promised, let's take a quick break here.
you guys are all sticking ♪ around. we'll be right back with one of the democrats who was asking it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. questions today. thdee mocrats wg questions today. kraft. for the win win. welcome to fowler, indiana. home to three of bp's wind farms. which, every day, generate enough electricity to power over 150,000 homes. and of course, fowler. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. welcome back, the house held it's a beautiful piece of land, so why haven't you started building? tyler's off to college. its first public hearing on this impeachment hearing, something and mom's getting older. else huge was happening on the other end of pennsylvania mhm, and eventually we would like to retire. avenue. td ameritrade can help you build a plan president trump hosted turkish for today and tomorrow. president erdogan at the white come with a goal. leave with a plan. house. a group of republican senators td ameritrade. only, they didn't invite any of the democrats to deal with turkey. all of them voiced concern about turk turkey's -- also met with
erdogan. joining me here in studio are richard engel. kelly, lay out what happened. he brought the press in with what looked like the president was mediating a debate between republican senators and erdogan. >> and it was an unscheduled added event in the oval office, and you're right. the tension is running deep between those particular republican senators who are very come with a goal. leave with a plan. frustrated by turkey's actions and i didn't have to come get you. in syria and especially with because you didn't have another heart attack. respect to the kurds. frustrated at the president too not today. over this issue and, president you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. trump acknowledged today that even with a stent procedure, there are real serious tension your condition can get worse over time, points in the relationship and keep you at risk of blood clots. between u.s. and turkey, even though he was so effusive in his so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. praise of president erdogan and xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, welcoming him to the white is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots house. it really is a stark thing when that can cause heart attack, you think about turkey acquiring stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. buying russian made military equipment at a time when that's because while aspirin can help, certainly the u.s. is very it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. uncomfortable about that. they are a nato ally. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® that is not an okay thing to do if you're a nato ally, and this
did not have a cardiovascular event. obvious question about what's don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, happening to the kurds. so there was a lot of tension as this may increase your risk of heart attack, today, and the president was saying he could try to work stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection through that and is hoping they can resolve some of these things increases the risk of blood clots while he stressed the good which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. relationship he has with erdogan. >> all right. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. richard, you were -- you're basically in northern syria for xarelto® can cause serious, the last three weeks. and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. dpl get help right away for unexpected bleeding glad to see you safe and sound here for a little bit. or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® those republican senators speaking for a bipartisan group if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. of senators who obviously are concerned about what turkey did. explain what turkey's doing. >> so turkey has launched an invasion into a pocket of northern syria. that pocket of northern syria for about the last five years has been run by kurds, run by kurds who live in syria. they were establishing their own homeland there. they had a name for it. it was a peaceful pro-american enclave. turkey always hated it. turkey always said the fighters there were terrorists. >> they thought it was going to be a staging ground for turkish kurds basically to come in and
go after them. that was the paranoia right? >> not just that. that was part of the paranoia. >> the terrorist group that -- >> i think the deeper concern is that the kurds there, they were afraid could inspire kurds inside of turkey to demand the same, that if the kurds got their own awe tutonomous homelan syria, there are some 20 million kurds inside turkey, and there were a lot of people inside turkey who were worried, they're going to ask for autonomy in the country as well. so they went in, they launched this operation with the united states blessing, with president trump actively allowing this to happen pulling back american troops, opening the door for this invasion, and attacking these syrian kurds, who are the same people who have been fighting with u.s. forces for the last five years against isis. what we saw today was president trump thanking erdogan, saying you guys have been so great in the fight against isis.
turkey really county take part in the fight against isis. most of the isis fighters ended up in syria because they went through turkey. the people who fought against isis with u.s. forces were the same syrian kurds who are now under attack. >> you were among the first reporters on air to talk about these maliciouilitias that turk allowing to slaughter people, to essentially commit war crimes, so they could claim it wasn't meks of the turkish army. >> there have been several u.s. officials who have gone on record and said they're committing war crimes. >> apparently we have video evidence of this. erdogan is at least admitting to some of this, i guess. >> no, he's not at all. >> he's admitting that there are these arab militias. that's my point. >> they're fully acknowledged. they're not just hidden. they're advised by the turkish government, the u.s. calls them turkish supported organizations. there's a name for them. the way turkey is describing it, they're not militias. these are syrian freedom
fighters who are going back to liberate their own homeland and fighting against the kurdish terrorists and that they are at the vanguard of a movement and that millions of refugees are going to be following them. so the way turkey is pointing this -- and you heard it today in erdogan's at the same times -- i see the clock is -- is the music starting to play? so the idea is that turkey is using these militias, which it calls a syrian freedom fighting army who are going in and that behind them will be millions of refugees. >> and again, our own satellites are capturing some of this in, and we have video. >> and while u.s. forces are there, not allowed to help their allies who are beingo'donnell, engel, i'm sorry we ran out of time. this is obviously an important story to be following. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily." msnbc news coverage continues. "the beat" with ari melber continues right now. >> a lot going on. thank you, chuck todd,
appreciate it. and thanks to you at home for joining "the beat" tonight. this is obviously the news, but sometimes the news you're watching also means you're living through history, and congress is making history right now launching these public impeachment hearings that began today with ambassador and army veteran bill taylor walking right up into congress as the first key fact witness in the center of this ukraine plot. roughly six hours
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on