trump does not live in this white house? >> that is an outrageous and ridiculous claim. >> they are a rare first couple, living in separate bedrooms according to sources familiar. while the first lady resides on a different floor in the white house residence. at times, expressing a different opinion from her husband, president donald trump. >> we are two independent people, thinking on our own. and have a very open conversation. >> she has faltered, that jacket. >> i wish people would focus on what i do, not what i wear. >> but she has also found some footing, learned how to steal the spotlight, wield her significant influence. remember that call for the firing of a west wing aid. and find her professional comfort zone. detached, aloof? possibly. always with little regard for how first ladies before her have handled the job. >> i don't feel like a prisoner, no. i enjoying it. and this will not last forever. and it's a very special time. >> one thing she does do really well, the holiday decorations, i saw them this morning at

house representation or any white house officials at all on the white house impeachment hearing slated by the judiciary committee. the obvious question is what happens now and where it is the time i go from here? chad pergram of the capital with more than that. >> this probably accelerates the pace of impeachment and here's why. the administration is not going to participate and that means a markup session where they actually read the articles of impeachment most likely comes late next week. they would have the hearing looking at the intelligence committee report on monday that it's already been on the books. if you're not going to have a hearing or some type of presentation by the administration then you don't need to chew up wednesday or thursday with that. that was a step in the process in 1998 with president clinton so they could go immediately to the markup sessions next week. that might be the most important step in the process because that is where members go through and write the actual articles. markup sessions on capitol hill, they do them all the time for almost every bill t

house that the white house has tried to keep secret. i have a new thing here that's interesting. for viewers who have been following along, we've been talking about this period in august where the negotiating has been going on and we talked about these newly released text messages and phone call logs that showed rudy giuliani talking to the very office that controlled the money that democrats alleged was part of the effort to extort ukraine. incriminating. bad. also bad is this comparison of draft statements. new in the report here on the left, what you're looking at and again we're just getting this now is an august 12th statement from ukraine. this is saying hey, we'll do gagss in general. on the right, you're looking at something the democrats say is very incriminating. the giuliani, volcker, sondland draft. burisma. this is the keyword for biden. you can think of burisma as the word biden. it is the company that basically the vice president's son had been on board of and that's the center of the effort to investigate the bidens, whi

house and from white house officials. he talked about the second article, decided not to allow key players in the administration to participate or interact or talk with democrats who subpoenaed them. on the senate side you will see i think more of a full throated defense of the president. stephanie grasham said the president looks forward to representing his side via attorneys when it goes to the senate side for trial. pulling back a bit, you asked for the mood. i have to say this, though, this is not a president based on all my reporting and people i talked to who has wanted to be impeached. this is not something he is eager to do, to have that asterisk next to his name, donald trump, impeached president. that said, he is somebody who relishes a fight, and at this point his white house appears to be leaning into that as it moves to the senate phase here. >> nobody that followed him would think he is not ready for a fight on this, halle, thanks. i want to bring in "new york times" correspondent charlie savage, an msnbc co

in other words, on one hand is the white house visit. while on the other hand he agreed to pursue the investigations. this statement shows that president zelensky fully understood at the time of the july 25th call the quid pro quo between these investigations and the white house meeting that president trump required and that ambassador sondland had testified so clearly about. numerous witnesses testified about the importance of a white house meeting with the president of the united states. specifically a meeting in the oval office, an official act by president trump. as david holmes, senior official in the u.s. embassy in ukraine said, it is important to understand that a white house visit was critical to president zelensky. president zelensky needed to show u.s. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to russian president vladimir putin that he had u.s. backing as well as to advance his ambitious, anti-corruption reform agenda at home. in other words, the white house visit would help zelensky's anti-corruption reforms. and

the white house has until 6:00 p.m. eastern time, less than an hour from now, to notify democrats whether the administration will send counsel lawyers to the first hearing on capitol hill on wednesday. then they face a second deadline. that's 5:00 p.m. on friday. two days later. to say whether they'll take part in the overall judiciary committee impeachment proceeding. all this is moving towards an even more consequential deadline. this for house democrats. christmas day and the target date that they've set to vote on whether to impeach president trump. let's turn now to sarah westwood for some answers. sarah, we have just under an hour left. is there any word on what the white house will do on this first deadline? >> well, the white house is being tight lipped about how they are going to handle this outreach from house judiciary gerald nadler, but white house officials speaking to cnn on friday slammed nadler for scheduling the first of this phase for wednesday when the president will be yooverseas at the nato conferen

the white house has until 5:00 p.m. this afternoon to decide whether they will participate in a hearing on monday. lawyers from the intelligence and judiciary committee will present their findings from investigations into the president. monday's hearing sets up a issue judiciary vote with a vote of the full house possible the week before christmas. lauren fox with more from capitol hill. >> reporter: dave and christine, nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house, making it clear, the democrats are moving forward with impeaching the president. >> the president leaves us no choice but to act, because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election, for his own benefit. >> reporter: now, what we do know is that next week is going to be another explosive one on capitol hill. on monday, the house judiciary committee will hold another hearing, this one to discuss that 300-page report from the house intelligence committee, all revolving around that july 25th phone call between donald trump and ukraine's president, zelensky. the

he rejected white house complaints. having declined this opportunity, he cannot claim that the process is unfair. the president wanting the last word perhaps, tweeted back at the democratic chairman. nadler hasn't had a single fact witness testify. zero substance. country wants growth, not impeachment. on friday we saw the president trying to focus on the positive jobs numbers, the strong economy, taking a little bit of a pause from his most combative style when it comes to impeachment. and trying to focus on the getting something done. also in that letter from pat cippolone, they used the words of the president who had said to the house, if you're going to impeach me, do it fast so they can get on to what they think would be a fair trial in the senate. we talked about the fact that the senate being republican controlled, is considered a better venue for the president to be heard. to mount a case, and in his view, and the white house's view, much more likely to end in acquittal. alex? >> kelly o'donnell at the white hou

house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. >> during this call with the ukrainian leader president trump did not discuss matters of importance to the united states such as ukraine's efforts to root out corruption. instead president trump veered quickly into the personal favor that he wanted president zelensky to do. two investigations that would help president trump's re-election effort. witnesses who listened to the call described it as unusual, improper, inappropriate, and concerning. two of them immediately reported their concerns to white house lawyers. now let me just take a few minutes walking through that important call step by step because it is evidence that is central to the president's scheme. near the beginning of the call, president zelensky said, i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes. the great support in the area of defense included the nearly $400 million of u.s.

house. >> everything i do i am coordinating with white house counsel. >> one saying he should recuse himself. >> the foreman of the jury, mitch mcconnell, that decides the rules will decide with the white house. that makes no sense. >> we have to remember this process started because the whistleblower was upset about what occurred with the july 25th call with ukraine. we're now learning the white house has cracked down even harder on who is allowed to listen to the president's calls with foreign leaders. now only the most senior politically appointed officials close to the president are allowed to listen, like the national security advisor and secretary of state. those advisors detailed to the national security council are no longer allowed to participate. it results in, one official telling me a small circle of loyalists in all discussions and reflects the fear and distrust gripping this white house. this has been called the vindman rule after lieutenant colonel vindman detailed to the counsel as an expert. i was told by an official if zelensky was called tomorrow he would no longer

what the white house asserted which no white house asserted was absolute immunity. all white houses in the past have negotiated with congress and they say this is privileged and nixon did it, clinton did it, i don't know what andrew johnson did, i was a young child. >> on fast and furious, obama said pounds sand and they went to the courts and it got worked out after they went to the courts. >> i'm talking about impeachment. >> it's still subpoenaing the testimony of witnesses from the executive branch whether it's an impeachment. >> and testimonies of executive branch employees and officials have been subpoenaed throughout our country's history. >> sure they have. >> and this is the first white house that has said blanketly we won't negotiate with you with this, you are not getting anyone. you are not getting documents. you're not getting phone records and you're not going to get any witness testimony and on top of that they argue that we didn't do anything wrong and the democrats won't bring out the exculpatory evidence. the exculpatory evidence would come from th

that is the white house in general. throughout our history that the occupant adapts to the office in the office adapts to the occupant. i think mrs. nixon, like all first ladies, this finds all of them together. there is no person who cares more about the success of the president and the presidency and the president's spouse. that is their single focus and that is something that will bind all of them together in what they share as the single person who has experienced the ups and downs, and who at the end of the day is not like any other advisor. they are a different confidant. i think mrs. nixon does not get the credit for just what an incredible political mastermind that she was. this is the hardest working person on the president's campaign. to think about it and richard nixon's campaign he had gone from congressman to senator to vice president of the united states, and in all of these campaigns, some of them were difficult. 1952 running for the vice presidency when the scandal on the finances corrupted and how -- er

house -- or the witness the white house is holding up? >>> and later, the strong women in the impeachment hearings that are pushing back against president trump. at the end of the hour, we're going to have the most important comment of the week that didn't get nearly enough attention. it was the most retaliatory comment i have heard uttered by the trump administration to date. [sneeze and sniffles] are you ok? yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which g

chief white house correspondent jim acosta is at the white house for us. how did they respond to senator schumer, or did they? >> reporter: it was a pretty predictable response. the white house press secretary stephanie grisham said it was laughable, this request from chuck schumer for testimony. the white house going on to say this is a sign the democrats don't have a case to convict and remove the president from office. but one thing that the white house did not say is, yes, you can have your witnesses, which is why people like chuck schumer are saying, what does the white house have to hide? i will tell you, anderson, talking to my sources this evening, there is a view inside the white house that what chuck schumer did earlier today was essentially respond to the president and other republicans saying they want to see hunter biden. they want to see the whistle-blower testify as if chuck schumer is saying, listen, if you want to bring in your witnesses, we'll want to bring in our witnesses, which means it will be in the interest of both sides to have a s

house white house. the fact isan the trump does not want to be an impeached president and look like he will be does not want to have that on his resume and politically it's better to run for reelection as an un- impeached president then one who has been voted and impeached by the house. it is not all positive for the white house from the campaign and the other thing is the impeachment trial as it goes forward in the senate means more headlines and emphasis on trump actions and what he did on the call with the ukraine leader asking for a favor that can be politicallyti advantageous. all of that attention there is concern among consultants that it could eventually tide of public opinion. >> speaking of defections, what's the likelihood of the michigan representativean who ws a republican turned independent becomes a house manager that the speaker assigns him along with other democrats to become a house manager? >> there are a group of democrats who want that to happen and want him as part of the house exe

let's begin with the white house. what are they saying about how they would like impeachment to look? guest: trump right now, president trump believes that impeachment is breaking his way, that he really believes it's given his supporters some momentum and enthusiasm, and he initially was of the mind that he wanted the senate to -- once the house takes their vote, which looks like it's going happen, he wanted the senate to take their time with the trial because he felt like it would be politically advantageous. well, at this point, it looks like he's been talked out of that. mcconnell, the senate majority leader, felt like he wanted a quick trial, but didn't want to bring in new witnesses and was able to prevail upon the white house that that was the best way to go. those negotiations are still ongoing and they're happening not only between the white house and the republicans in the senate, but also between the republicans in the senate and the democrats. but at this point it looks like they're coming in on trying to

white house up to?ndha josh: rudy giuliani is over in ukraine with one american news network, a right wing conservave network, meeting witho prosecutors, seen by the u.s. government to be ethically deficient, meeting with some of his allies he's d t with before. he's essentially doing what he did the first timeve all again, looking for more evidence to tout the narrative that ukraine interfered with the election and was out to get president trump. that has been debunked lots of ways but wt rudy is trying to do is to show there is something here, even if it's just a kernel, it gives people a chance to talk about what he's finding there and he's not giving up. there were lots of white house officialsnd g.o.p. allies who are stunned he would return baco what one person called the scene of the crime ton essentially m dance on stage of the scene of the crime. that was a quote wead in a piece, it's a remarkable move. mberly: when you're talking about t timing for the democrats, one thing that has united democ

the white house has just informed the house judiciary committee it will not participate in further house impeachment proceedings calling them, and i'm quoting from the letter right now, completely baseless and a reckless abuse of power. white house lawyer pat sip loney says impeach me now so we could have a fair trial in the senate as democrats on the judiciary committee plan to spend the weekend preparing for next week's hearing and that starts on monday. let's go straight to jim acosta. the president's team said they are waiting for a senate trial before they take part in this impeachment. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. and it is made clear in the letter from pat cipollone telling democrats to get lost and what they are saying to the house judiciary committee, basically saying we're not going to participate in this house impeachment inquiry process. dear chairman nadler this is basement and violated basic principles but the speaker of the house ordered the democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment before your committee has heard a single shred of evidence and the letter goes

the white house created an investigation unit in the white house and it didn't use subpoenas to acquire the information. that's where the problem arises. here, a little bit later in 1971, the white house wants better political intelligence for the pending 1972 election. the president was concerned about his re-election. here we have information laying out for you what we know about the extent to which the white house sponsored what was then called a dirty tricks operation to zwrund mine the campaigns of potential adversaries and launched an intelligence organization that to acquireiretapping information about the president's adversaries. the exhibit is very clear about what we know and what we don't know. in fact, there is a whole panel here that lays out based on the trial testimony, on the tapes, on the documents that the watergate's special prosecution forces and the house judiciary committee looked at and we looked at. and materials that we had in our collection that we were able to release in the last few years. best evidence on what various members of the white house staff and the

that is the phrase the white house used when it announced the president's intention to speak. now, here is the president. >> we rolling, gentlemen? >> yes, sir. >> all right. good evening. i have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the importance of announcing that we, today, have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in vietnam and in southeast asia. >> the cease-fire will take effect at 2400 greenwich mean time, january 27th, 1973. within 60 days, all american forces will be withdrawn from south vietnam. >> copy. >> it's over now. we're going to be reunited again. president nixon said we got out of it with honor, and i'm happy with that. >> i'll tell you, we accomplished something. we've got peace. absolutely. >> seven men went on trial today charged with the break-in and burglary of democratic national headquarters in the watergate building last june. >> far more is involved here than the guilt or innocence of the seven defendants. if they are guilty, why did they do it? then who put them up to it? >> good evening. the jury in the

and the white house counsel who is the kind of white house counsel he wants who will engage mostly in political lawyering rather than lawyer lawyering. i don't know pat cipollone, but everything we've seen, from all the official documentation, everything he is signing his name to in the course of this ukraine vision, that is clearly how he has behaved in terms of trying to execute the stonewall and trying to stop people from testifying. he regards this as a political matter. and that is entirely consistent. if you have someone like bill barr as your attorney general, it is not surprising that donald trump now has the equivalent, the mini me version of it as white house counsel. >> frank, i guess i just imagine in the smithsonian in 20 years in the impeachment exhibit all pat cipollone's ludicrous arguments, it will be an ipad. but, i mean, these legal arguments are so hollow. and i guess heilemann makes the right argument fictional kinds of utterances coming from the attorney general. >> well, the other thing that i think will play out perhaps in the national archives someday decades

but the white house is disputing whether this phone number in the white house actually called rudy giuliani and whose phone number it was. they're not disputing the underlying claim that rudy giuliani has had a lot to do with the white house as it related to this ukraine ordeal. >> that's right. the notion that he somehow a rogue figure is ridiculous. and as we speak, he is apparently in ukraine talking to people with shady backgrounds still trying to get this dirt, which doesn't exist, on joe biden. and what we also know, because rudy giuliani keeps telling us, is that for these people, quote, corruption is the same as an investigation into joe biden. that is very harmful to the president's position, who has been trying to make the claim, as ridiculous as it might seem, that he is really interested in cleaning up corruption in general in ukraine. and here he is, his private lawyer, still going down the road of finding information from foreigners. something that's illegal. you're not supposed to get something of value from a foreigner. and here he is telling us that, no, those sorts of word

chairman nadler responded with this tonight to the white house. quote, we gave president trump a fair opportunity to question witness and present his own to address the overwhelming evidence before us. after listening to him complain about the impeachment process, we had hoped he might accept our invitation. if the president has no good response to the allegations, then he would not want to appear before the committee. having declined this opportunity he cannot claim that the process is unfair. the president's failure will not prevent us from carrying out our solemn constitutional duty. so they're going ahead with or without the president or any lawyers that might represent the president in these proceedings. sounds like it will probably be without. they're just going to move forward. but even as the judiciary committee moves ahead, remember that one of the interesting things about the way the process is being conducted this time is that the intelligence committee which conducted the investigation into what the president did, the main part of that

the house judiciary committee takes over the impeachment inquiry. will the white house participate? ♪. >> the failed washington establishment is trying to stop me because i'm fighting for you and because we're winning. chris: as the intelligence committee raps up its work and prepares to issue its report, the judiciary committee must now decide whether to write articles of impeachment. president trump must decide whether to send a lawyer a lawyer to represent him. >> as we continue to gather evidence and the facts from the testimony we'll go where the facts take us. chris: this hour we'll sit down with two members of the judiciary committee. the top republican on the panel, doug collins of georgia and democrat hakim jeffries of new york, only on "fox news sunday." then -- >> very encouraging but we'll not let it go to our heads. >> the same answer as always been i don't do polling. chris: buttigieg up, warren down. we'll ask our sunday panel about the top tier of 2020 democratic candidates getting reshuffled, all right now on "fox news sunday." ♪ chris: hello again from fox news

steve strong is the national cochair of our white house, national council on white house history. he and his wife andrea are here with us tonight. this is one of our most important groups here at the white house historical association. their support, their encouragement, their inspiration and their wisdom really puts the wind in the sails of so much of what we do. we are grateful to have you with us here tonight, steve. the program tonight, dr. matt costello, is going to share with us about his brand-new book hot off the presses. this is the first time we are making it available. we are very proud of him as one of the historians here. he has been with us now for three years. he has made quite a mark and makes a contribution to the association. prior to coming here he had contributed to the george washington bibliography project. he was a fellow at mount vernon. he is teaching a course at american university on white house history, the first time , to has been done anywhere our knowledge. we hope to broaden that beyond american university so classrooms across the country can join v

house documents and the white house is very interested in ensuring that those white house documents remain confidential and within the executive branch and that is a long-standing push and pull that has been going on for decades. from the white house counsel's office perspective when you might say why is it that a white house cares so much about keeping internal white house communications confidential the enen this is both the real world reason in the parts of the world reason is no one to have their e-mails were strewn all over the front page of "the washington post" but another real world reason is that if the president's most senior advisors and those who are engaging with the president on a day to day basis about the importance of decisions a president is making have a concern that their communications as affected in internal documents will be providedefef an real-time or vil real-time to the public or to the congress that it will chill the advice that the president gets and thatra is a very practical real concern and i've seen it happen in real life where people start to give a

we know the two of them in the white house on friday. it was a lengthy meeting that the president made the case for a party switch and uphill, he took it very seriously and now we are waiting for him to actually make clearwhat his intentions are . >> and the white house likes this. >> they want to show defections from thedemocratic side to the republican side, especially in the house . they want to be able to say that impeachment was not supported in a bipartisan way. they're hoping that for the white house's perspective but it's onlydemocrats who vote for impeachment in the house . and that if the previous vote on the rules of how, we see that as a roadmap for how the impeachment vote goes, we see a few democrats defect over to vote against impeachment and the white house likes the optics of that and how that looks to their voters and their narrativethat this is a partisan effort . i will say the downside to this whole impeachment thing, it's not all roses for the trump white house . the fact is trump doesn't want to be impeached which

live at the white house. >> the white house said it makes no sense to participate in the house judiciary committee impeachment hearing tomorrow. democratic lawmakers have predetermined. the white house is preparing in case articles of impeachment are sent over to the republicans control to the senate. >> i think another reason they might rushing is that they might lose some of their dems but if they go to the senate, he's ready for at least a fair process and he will show everything and he will show heated nothing from pre-to the president released two transcripts. that's the only evidence they have. >> has democrats believe they are standing on strong impeachment grounds. they are not convinced that senators would come to a different conclusion. >> the house members will have to decide. in the face of an abundance of uncontested evidence of the president threat to our election, he put himself, the only interest above the interest of the country. >> the oncoming press to national security is an abuse of power that needs to be dealt with. it's depressing. i wish the president behavior hav

the white house has blocked the release of any documents as well. but now reporters from "the new york times" found something extremely important, something we did not know before that provides a glimpse, crucially, into what kind of incriminating testimony trump's closest advisers would give if they were allowed to, or required to, by, say, a subpoena from the senate for its impeachment trial. "the times" reporting there was a meeting in late august in the white house where, quote, defense secretary mark esper joined secretary of state mike pompeo and john bolton, the national security advisor at the time, for a previously undisclosed oval office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in the interests of the united states. those are three of the most senior members of the trump administration, arguably the most senior other than the president and the vice president, trying and failing to get the president to back off, to lift his unlawful hold on the aid to ukraine. now, of course we know t

white house. 0njuly three, the white house first blocks security assistance money for ukraine with no explanation. 0n assistance money for ukraine with no explanation. on july ten, assistance money for ukraine with no explanation. 0njuly ten, gordon states during a white house meeting with ukrainian officials that they will "get a white house meeting, only after announcing an investigation into president trump's political rival". 0njuly 18, investigation into president trump's political rival". 0njuly18, white house staffer announces the freeze on ukrainian aid, per direct presidential order. and just one day after robert muller's testimony before congress, president trump makes the now infamous phone call with a zelensky, asking him to investigate the bidens. then, things start to fall apart. see, the white house learns that a whistle—blower has reported president trump's phone call with president zelensky in a complaint. 0n call with president zelensky in a complaint. on september nine, congress starts to investigate president's actions. then the jig is up. on september 11, presid

house call and the white house meeting the answer is yes someone was a donor to the president's inauguration rewarded with an ambassadorship to the european union he was center to the plot and he said everyone was in a suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false the leadership of the state department the national security council and the white house were all informed about the ukraine efforts and another state department official testified he heard some land on the phone with the president during the lunch ambassador silane said that he was going to call president trump to give an update master stalin placed a call on his mobile phone i heard of announce himself several times along the lines of courting song and holding for the president i've entered president from ask so he's going to do the investigation. master song replied that he is going to do it adding a president selenski will do anything you ask him to do with that democrats say they've made the case for 2 counts of impeachment one for abuse of power the 2nd for obstruction of congress. t

at the white house. the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power around the set of facts donald trump has largely fessed up to and obstruction of congress, policy there is a the white house has memorialized in multiple letters from the white house counsel. what's the reaction today to both those counts? >> reporter: nothing directly from the president. we should hear from him shortly. he's going to be greeting the paraguay president. we have two statements, one from the campaign and one from the press secretary. the press secretary one to me is the most interesting because it doesn't mention the word trial. the press secretary saying they look forward to the next process and to have due process and fair treatment, but nowhere in there is the word trial. that gives you an indication, especially when you add up all the comments this morning from pam bondi as well as mitch mcconnell last night that there's going to be no daylight between senate republicans and this white house. regardless of o who ends u

heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down visit for to washington good luck, see you tomorrow, kurt. even before the phone call with president zelensky took place, president trump had directed that ukraine initiate the investigation into 2016, the debunked conspiracy theory that ukraine had interfered in the election in order for president zelensky to get the white house visit that he desperately coveted. ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo. >> frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested without call and meeting, the answer is yes. during this call with the ukrainian leader, president trump did not discuss matters of importance to the united states such as ukraine's efforts to root out corruption. instead president trump veered quickly into the personal favor

white house official testify? thedo those optics effect president's political capital and his ability to get other things that he wants to get if he still has another election, a reelection, all of these things come into the mix ere you get wh into the zone of accommodating and why historically it hasn't happened a lot, but there have been senior white house officials with testify before congress, notwithstanding the fact that the executive branch that there is a circle of advisers who should be immune from having to provide testimony to congress. robert: if it is what you refer to as a prudential judgment that affects both the legal and constitutional position the president takes and what you call optics, the potential political sensitivities of allowing testimony or not allowing testimony, let me put the question to you this way, don. if you are going to one day teach white house counsel school and you've got a white house counsel in front of you, what is the theoretical matter to the role of the white house cou

annie karni, white house reporter with "the new york times." and jeremy peters, political reporter also with "the new york times." good evening and welcome. and jonathan lemire, forgive the apparent cynicism. was this just another week for the white house, or did this feel perhaps different? >> i think we need to keep this in perspective. this is different. this president now becomes only the third ever to -- is poised to become only the third ever to be impeached, and it's one of those moments where we all believe we know the outcome, that next week controlled by the democrats will impeach him. we'll move into early next year and the republicans in the senate will not move to remove him. but that doesn't change what matters here. the president in the oval office today angrily denounced what happened, saying that this is an embarrassment for the country, suggesting that people around the nation were laughing at washington for doing this. also tried to spin it as a political win, echoing what his campaign staff, his senior campaign staff said ye

all in a day's news of covering the trump white house. we are also watching the house judiciaryng committee. we're going to dip back into today's testimony. >> and then going the next step and publishing the results of that match in a report that the minority hadn't seen until it was released. that, i think, is an abuse of power. we're o talking a lot about abus of power here in the white house and in the executive branch. here, we see a clear abuse of power on the part of the people who are prosecuting this impeachment against the president of the united states.t they should be ashamed of themselves. now, i come from the state where joe mccarthy came from. i met joe mccarthy twice when i was first getting into politics as a teenager. folks, you have made joe mccarthy look like a piker with what you've done with the electronic surveillance involved. it is something that has to be put a stop to now. it is something that has to be fessed up to now. whether it's you, mr. goldman, that authorized the matching and the publication or whether it

the white house had until 6:00 p.m. eastern so an hour ago to let house democrats know whether or not the president is going to be sending a legal team to wednesday's impeachment hearing. that is the first one under the house judiciary committee. let's get straight to the white house and cnn's sarah westwood. sarah, any word now from officials on what will happen on wednesday? >> reporter: well, alex, white house officials are being tight-lipped about whether a response went to the house judiciary committee on whether the white house plans to send a lawyer to this hearing on wednesday, the first in the judiciary committee as the impeachment proceedings move into a new phase. but white house officials speaking to cnn did say that they were not happy that chairman nadler had scheduled this hearing for wednesday when the president will be in london for the nato summit. but of course this offer from nadler to allow a counsel from the white house to be present put the white house in a bit of a tough position. because on the

host: and the white house likes this, right? guest: this is important to the white house. they want to show defections from the democratic side to the republican side, especially in the house. they want to be able to say that impeachment was not supported in bipartisan way. they're hoping that the white house's perspective that it's only democrats who vote for impeachment in the house and that if the previous vote on the rules of how impeachment proceed, that is a road map for how the final vote goes, then we'll probably see a few democrats defect over to vote against impeachment. and the white house likes the optics of that and how that looks to their voters and their narrative that this is a partisan effort. now, i will say the downside to this whole impeachment thing, it's not all roses for the trump campaign, trump white house. the fact is trump doesn't want to be an impeached president. looks like he's going to be. he doesn't want to have that on his resume. and politically, it's better to run for reelection as an unimpeached president, than one who has been voted and

t house and the white house were at an impasse. however after a little bit of time, we the republican staff, with the help of mr. jordan, convinced the witness to appear with agency counsel for our own transcribed interview. the democrats came along. the subsequent interviews in the security clearance investigation were conducted with agency counsel. the testimonial lowed ty committee to obtain the evidence to get to what was going on. nobody outside the security office was handing out clearances. certainly not to senior white house staffers. in this impeachment democrats have turned away evidence that could be vital to the investigation. democrats have declined to negotiate in good faith with the administration about the scope of document requests. as a result the evidentiary record is incomplete and in many places incoherent. the failure to exhaust all avenues severely risks undermining the legitimacy of any articles of impeachment. as professor turley said to the committee last week, i'm concerned about lowering impeachment stan

mitch mcconnell has said that he is in total coordination with the trump white house. he wants a short trial. schumer, as you said, wants witnesses. the president, keeping his options open. >> all right, terry, thank you. i did have one other question for you, terry, because we know when it comes to the senate, it's all about math. 67 members of the senate needed to actually convict the president, but that's extremely unlikely here. >> reporter: really unlikely. you almost can't imagine it in these partisan times. that 67, a super majority. and it is highly unlikely, because the public is locked in. 50/50 country on this as so many other issues and looks like all these weeks of hearings and this debate today hasn't moved anyone very far at all. >> that's for sure. terry, thank you all and we will go back to the news as soon as there is another headline from washington, but in the meantime, we move onto the other news this wednesday night. >>> and that deadly attack at a shopping center outside portland, oregon, the attacker with a knife, killing one person, wounding se

to try to get more information coming out of the white house and the white house staff. >>> as we have been saying over and over this day is certainly historic. we are keeping an eye on nancy pelosi. she is back at the chair at the top of the podium. she will gavel everyone into order. she did it very quickly once she decided the vote was in enough time had been given for members to vote. we have 31 the members of the house who have not cast their vote. as of yet. like we did in the first article i haven't seen any of the numbers really changed.>>> there is still time. members of the house can change their votes up until the house speaker gavels. it seems as though 27 votes.>>> people are casting their votes. it was interesting pelosi could put off this votes on just who is going to represent this case before the u.s. senate. it was expected she might do that even tonight or tomorrow. tomorrow is going to be a wind down day in washington. all the members of the house and the senate take off on friday or thursday night to start their holiday break. >>> which is also why things will not

the white house to not do that. the funding should be held up. two people resigned over that. one person resigned because of not understanding the reason for the hold that president trump put on the reason for the funds of ukraine. what the president ordered could have been illegal as the washington post notes tonight. current and former government officials have testified they were alarmed about the white house's decision to withhold the money from ukraine. mark sandy's testimony is the perfect conversation that the dispute became so intense at omb, it responded to these issues. he made it seem like he knew there was someone in the legal office who quit. they're asking for someone from the legal office, the guy volunteers that someone else he knows quit over this as well. this is news tonight, again, we don't know the names of these officials who quit over the president holding up this aid. the questions of what the president was ordering up here, appear to have been widespread among officials who know how this sor

however, even at the white house the white house put out a statement today saying that foreign minister met with president trump. reno that meeting was about an hour long and president trump also issued a warning against russia, do not interfere in u.s. elections. later today the foreign minister of russia was at the russian embassy and he was a bit evasive when asked about this discussion. let's listen to what he had to say. >> we haven't discussed elections. i told him that state secretary mentioned it publicly. in response i have publicly reminded that we have offered to the current administration to publish the correspondence of the channel that was especially established to warrant about the cyber threats. >> there's he's a bit unclear admitting it did come up when he was at the white house today. he referenced fact that mike pompeo brought up russian med ling. another thing that foreign minister of russia was asked about today, are those allegations, those debunked thr theories that ukraine interfered in the u.s. elections. we know that russia have peddled those theories and trump

nbc hans nichols is our white house reporter. another person in trump's orbit who is feeling the heat from the impeachment saga is attorney general william barr. barr's defense of president trump has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. last wednesday, as the house was moving to impeach trump, barr told fox news that democrats were trivializing the impeachment process. he said the articles of impeachment here do not allege a violation of the law. i'm concerned about it being trivialized and used as a political tool. legal experts slammed those comments. accusing barr of ignoring his responsibilities as the nation's top prosecutor. one of them was the former federal prosecutor michael j. stern, who told "newsweek" that barr's loyalty to the white house is a perversion of his job. he also told "newsweek" there is inherent conflict in barr's designated role as chief law enforcement officer of this country and his efforts to protect the man who gave him his job. it is unfortunate that bill barr never misses an oppo

steve restaurant is the national co-chair of the white house -- our national council on white house history and his wife andrea are here with us tonight. one of our most important group here at white house historical association. their support it puts the winds in the sails of what we do. we're so glad to have you with us here tonight, steve. the program tonight, dr. matt costello will share with us about his brand-new book that is hot off the presses. this is the first time we're making it available. we're proud of matt. he's one of our historians here at the association. he's been with us now -- how long has it been? three years on november 1st. he makes quite a contribution to our work here at the association. prior to coming here, he had contributed to the bibly yog fi project. he was a fellow at mount vernon. he is currently doing two things that i'm particularly proud of, he's teaching a course on american university on white house history. to our knowledge, this is the first time this has ever been done anywhere. and we hope to broaden that beyond just american universities so that c

and the white house has refused. has refused to produce anything when it comes to the impeachment investigation. and the allegation is that this is a denial of the congressional power under the constitution, under article i of the constitution, that it has the right to conduct this sort of oversight, and that's the basis of article i. >> as we're talking, jim sciutto, very interesting, the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, just back from ukraine, by the way. he was spotted going into the white house. i assume he's going to be meeting with his client, the president of the united states. >> this is the amazing reality here. that the president is going to face votes, a likely vote in the house, impeached for inviting, in effect, foreign interference in the election from ukraine. even as that's happening, it's still happening. his personal attorney has returned. it's interesting, "the wall street journal" piece about this that the moment that giuliani landed from ukraine on saturday, according to the "wall st

wants, he's lock step with the white house counsel's office. as for mr. schwartz's statement we know the president and his advisers publicly bluff a game but privately try to shut the process down and the president at one point said he'd testify, he's send lawyers and then it's been shutdown, shutdown, shutdown. it's not the conduct of an innocent person, right? it's the conduct of someone who knows they've done something wrong and want to try to curtail this process and minimize this process. so i assume based on what senator mcconnell has said that he's doing what the white house wants. and i think the public bravado is not really indicative of their private messaging to republicans on capitol hill. >> so if you were back in the senate what would you be doing right now, if you were working on capitol hill with your colleagues as a democrat what kind of messaging would you be putting out there? what would you be doing behind the scenes to try to secure those three additional republican senators? >> as joyce said it's a legal process and a poli

the house and the white house were at an impasse. however, after a little bit of time, we the republican staff with the help of mr. jordan convinced the witness to appear with the agency council for our own interview. they were conducted with agency council. the testimony allowed the committee to obtain the evidence and get to the bottom of what was going on and it wasn't what was alleged. nobody outside of the clearance office was handing out clearances. certainly not senior white house staffers the inquiry was incomplete and in many places incoherent. the failure to exhaust all avenues and the articles of impeachment. as he said to the committee, i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit evidence and anger. i believe this not only fails the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. the case for impeaching president trump as a result relies heavily on ambiguous facts. presumptions and speculation. he warned here too that impeachments have been based on proof not pre

meanwhile behind the scenes, the white house knows it's a big deal. and you can tell they know by some of the actions they are now taking. cnn is reporting that alan dershowitz is advising the white house impeachment team. you were reporting this as well. cnn says he could be involved in the senate trial in terms of explaining his side of the constitutionality of the charges here. what are you hearing in. >> exactly that. i don't think he actually is formally advising the white house team yet. but there has been discussion within the white house among the president's personal advisers about whether to bring him on. you had mark meadows, congressman from north carolina who's very close to the president who said it publicly this week that he would like to see alan dershowitz added to the team. and to be on this narrow area of the law. if he is involved in helping defend on this trial. dershowitz obviously had some connection to the jeffrey epstein case. and he has denied doing anything wrong. but there would be headlines around that. and some of the pre