Red exodus as another big name republican heads for the door. All in starts right now. Good evening from new york. In less than two days the house will hold public impeachment hearings against the president of the United States for just the fourth time in american history. The hearings will be televised live. And our tv obsessed president and his cronies are trying to find some sort of counter narrative or distraction. It is a freak out born out of their fundamental impa tense. It gives them the power to run those proceedings as they see fit. Democrats control the house, so there is just about nothing the president or republicans can do. Although, one thing they could do is attempt to construct arguments that might be persuasive to the general public about the president s behavior or the facts around the case. The facts are really bad. The behavior is inexcusable. So republicans are going to extremes, including trying to out the whistleblower who is protected by federal law and already receiving death threats. Trumps surrogates made the rounds who tried to argue that if you do not succeed at committing a crime then the attempt doesnt count. Do you think ultimately the president will be impeached and removed from office. No. On what . You are going to impeach a president for asking for a favor that didnt happen and giving money and it wasnt withheld . I dont know what you would impeach him on. Interesting theory. Republican congressman tried to say the bad does bad things all the time, so really how is this any different . There is not really anything that the president said in that phone call thats different than he says in public all the time. So is there some sort of abuse of power that rises to that threshold that is different than the American People have been hearing for three years . I dont hear that. You have gotten used to it, america. You cant quit now. Senator john carry went out and tries to ascribe motivation to trumps request. Here are the two possible scenarios. Number one, the president asked for an investigation of a political rival. Number two, the president asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival. The latter would be in the national interest. The former would be in the president s parochial interests and over the line. Give kennedy credit for at least trying a nuanced argument. But it doesnt really matter what the president s motivations were. We learned from the most recent impeachment transcript of a department of defense official released today that it was, according to multiple entities within the government itself, in the interest of u. S. National security to provide military aid to ukraine. So the president withholding that money was definitely not done in the best interest of the u. S. The testimony of that Defense Department official also noteworthy because it was delayed for five hours. That was the day that House Republicans stormed the secure room where the interview was being held and they ordered pizza and delayed the hearing, demanded to be let in, even though many of them were already allowed to be in there. Many republicans who have sat in these depositions have not taken full advantage. A Perfect Little microcosm of this appears in one of the transcripts. Mark meadows as an opportunity to substantively question a witness before him. But instead of actually question the witness, he spends several minutes complaining about not being allowed to ask questions. The acting chairman tells him he can ask questions over and over and over and over and over. That, you know, is the republican approach in a nutshell, whining about process, but not engaging on the substance. Meanwhile, the president s approach has been to tweet insane information about the transcripts and undermine the republican messages of the day. Quote, republicans, dont be l into the fools trapped saying it was not perfect, the phone call that is. It is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. Nothing was done wrong. All of these are just attempts, different attempts to try to find some story, any story that will stick to keep the trump base in mind. The goal here is not to persuade people not persuadable as much as it is to give trump tv something to talk about that is not the president s completely impeachable behavior when he attempted to extort a leader. House republicans will not be in the business of making arguments to persuade the middle of the country. They will be going into this entire undertaking on a sabotage mission. One of the Congress People investigating the president of virginia. Shes a member of the House Foreign Affairs committee. Congresswoman, you were one of those freshmen reps who wrote an on ed when the whistleblower complaint first started to surface and its contents talking about how troubling it is. It was seen as a watershed moment in breaking the dam. Looking back now as you are about to go into public hearings on this, are you glad you did that or is it better or worse than you thought it might be . So i was one of the freshmen democratic members who wrote an op ed. In that capacity i worked to ensure that we were upholding u. S. National security interest and protecting our country from all threats. I think it was absolutely the right choice to assert to the American Public and most especially to my constituents that the allegations the president was facing at that time and continues to face represent truly unthinkable potential violations and if they are true, impeachable allegations. And it was necessary and continues to be necessary that the house of representatives use every Authority Available to us to get all facts in evidence related to these allegations and to discern what it is that really happened. You are someone who represents a district that was a republican district, and i think there are a lot of people in your district that voted for the president or who might be in the habit of voting for republicans, consider themselves republicans. How much do you think there is persuadable room. When you are thinking about going to your constituents and talking about the facts of the case and what is being presented, how much do you think you can persuade folks . How much do the facts matter in those interactions . Well, i think were entering a really important next phase. I am on one of the committees of jurisdiction, so i have been able to attend depositions and read testimony up until this point. But i think the next phase of this inquiry will be vitally important. This is the portion where the American Public get to participate. The American Public gets to hear the testimony, see directly from the witnesses what it is that some of us on these committees of jurisdiction have already been able to see. I think that that is vitally important. I think that the next step is ensuring that the American People not just understand the allegations of the president but understand that we have career Public Servants of backgrounds having worked under republican and democratic administrations alike making these allegations, that we have veterans and purple heart recipients that speak to deeply disturbing allegations against the president of the United States, allegations that he sought to leverage foreign aid, foreign aid that is given because it serves our best National Security priorities, foreign aid for information and for the public declaration of an investigation to benefit him in a forwardlooking future election. And i think its going to be vital that the American People be part of this next step, be able to be witnesses to the testimony thats given in these future hearings. Your colleagues, republican colleagues and the republicanaligned media seems obsessed with the whistleblower, the identity of the whistleblower. The president s son tweeted out his identity. Though, i dont know if its true or not. What do you ascribe to that and what do you make of the way in which they are talking to this individual who as far as reporting indicates was at the cia where you yourself once worked . I find it actually rather confusing. It is congress is the body that created whistleblower protections in the first place. It is some of my colleagues who were still serving who went so far as to put laws into place to protect whistleblowers so that we can ensure that people who see things that are not acceptable within our federal government can step forward and be protected from retaliation, that they can ring the bell when there is something to be concerned about. But i think most importantly what is really important for your viewers to know is while the whistleblower complaint is what got much of this investigation started, every aspect of what is outlined in that whistleblower complaint, in fact, has been discussed by witness after witness. So we have seen named witnesses, people who have come forward and testified before the impeachment inquiry hearing and committee to discuss what it is that was initially set forth in this complaint. Right. All right. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And happy veterans day. Yeah. To you. Thanks a lot. As we approach wednesdays hearing there is moving parts to the investigation. More depositions. And they have these outstanding requests, even subpoenas, that have gone out to several witnesses who declined to come before the committee. One of them was a former National Security adviser john boltons deputy who did a thing to go to a court to get a proactive ruling whether he should listen to congress or the white house. Bolton also said he would follow the lead of the court case here and both bolton and his deputy subpoenas were withdrawn by the house because House Democrats do not want a judge to swoop in and say they have no case here and take their subpoena power away effectively. Today we learned that trumps chief of staff Mick Mulvaney who also was subpoenaed tried to join that lawsuit and then gave up the effort by the end of the day. Joining me now is bob bower, former white House Counsel under president barack obama who has some experience navigating the very rocky halls of congressional and white house interactions and the law. What do you make of this situation in which there is a petition for a ruling by a court by this subpoenaed witness. Bolton joined it. The house withdrew it, trying to render it moot. And then Mick Mulvaney tried to jump in today. Yes, mulvaney wanted to piggyback on the complaint or motion, rather. And they opposed it. They said that mulvaney didnt belong with them. Their argument was many fold. One argument they made was they were hitching much of their argument to the fact they were involved in National Security conversations. And mulvaney doesnt have that behind him. He doesnt have that to draw on. And this National Security factor is one that bolton wants the court to weigh carefully in deciding what their obligation to testify might be. That was part of it. They noted mulvaney may have breached anyway because he had that disastrous White House Press conference where he announced there was a quid pro quo and the American People should get over it, that political influence was typical in foreign relations. They felt that, quite frankly, his presence would be a real ball and chain on their case and they didnt want any part of it. They opposed it in which part mulvaney withdrew and said he was going to file his own suit. We have seen assertions of absolute immunity and vague references to privilege with the white house but no specific invocations thereof. Talk about that concept, which is interesting to me. Yes. Well, the argument that of course white house officials make directed by the white house, at least that wont testify, others have, is that they cannot testify because it breaches an absolute immunity they have that rests on a claim that the president has to have the full confidential advice completely expected by exposure of senior aids. If they go to the White House Press room and discuss it, that endangers that claim. That was the point that bolton and cupperman made. They said we have never done anything like that, and we dont want mulvaney in our action. They claim theyre completely neutral. They will do what the court directed them to do. Whereas in mulvaneys case he appeared to be proexecutive. He had a position in the case, and they didnt want his position to tar their more neutral position. It is striking to me that a lot of this we have talked about this a bit before as we head into the formal part of this process. These fights between the branches who has to testify and who doesnt, there is very little jurisprudence on it and very little guidance by the courts. It is a kind of power struggle between these two branches about who has what power in what scenario, right . Yes. But there are two layers of analysis here. One is in the typical oversight area, that is nonimpeachment oversight, typically the executive and the congress try to work it out. The congress has executive privilege claims that he or she may want to make and the Congress Wants the testimony and they try to work out some accommodations so that the president can protect the privilege to some extent but the congress receives the information that it wants. But now were in impeachment. And the congress is making the case, and i think it is obviously a very strong case, that the impeachment power is when congresss demand for the information is as its apex. It is when there isnt a defense against providing that information except bolton and cupperman want to know where the conversations between the president and the senior aids implicates sensitive National Security matters. Final question for you. You have always struck me as a very careful lawyer. You were white House Counsel when one has to be quite careful in that position. Rudy giuliani, the president s lawyer, though, on the basis of that is a little unclear. Hes not getting paid for that. There is a headline today hes considering launching an impeachment podcast. Do you think thats a good idea from a legal perspective . I would have to say no. I cant imagine that the president s personal legal team or the white House Counsel would be thrilled that giuliani is podcasting his views on impeachment. He is apparently the subject, possibly the target of grand jury proceedings. His involvement in ukraine is the subject of all of this testimony. His business dealings are the subject of this testimony. He was in regular communication with donald trump. So why he would decide that hes going to have his own sort of, if you will, Public Communications channel on this subject is completely beyond me. I have never heard anything like it. Thank you so much. Certainly. Up next, new reporting that changes what we know about when the ukraine scheme all began and what were learning straight from the lawyer of rudys indicted buddy in two minutes. Is your business still settling for slow internet . Well time is money. Switch to comcast business now and get a great deal when you get fast, reliable internet. With a 30day moneyback guarantee, installation when it works for you, and 24 7 customer support. So what are you waiting for . Get this great deal when you sign up for fast, reliable internet. Call 18005016000 today. Comcast business. Beyond fast. Do you remember back in may when Rudy Giuliani announced he was going to ukraine to try to get the government to manufacture dirt on joe biden. At the time he literally said, quote, we are not meddling in an election. We are meddling in an investigation. There is nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say its improper. Adam schiff responded to him, yes, it is immoral. And two days later, giuliani canceled that trip. We are finding out that a version of that mission appears to still have happened. His associates delivered the message instead. Hes the guy on the left. He told the New York Times through his new lawyer on the record that he, quote, told a representative the incoming ukraine government it had to announce an investigation into joseph biden and his son or else Vice President mike pence would not attend the swearing in of the new president and the United States would freeze aid. He also said this message was delivered at the direction of mr. Giuliani. Now the other indicted guy and giuliani deny his announce of that may meeting. Giuliani saying categorically i did not tell him to say that. Neither of these guys actually dispute that the meeting actually occurred. So if what he is saying is true, this could be the first explicit attempt to just openly extort the ukraine government in the way we have now seen in the call in the testimony. Remember, exactly a week ago that parnas broke ranks with giuliani, which strongly suggests hes cooperating. More on that, im joined by National Security reporter for the daily beast and National Security correspondent for politico. And this claim makes sense of another part of the time line, which is that we know that all the way back in may, the administration was freaked out about the fact that aid was maybe being upheld and maybe they had to investigate biden in order to get it unupheld. Yeah. Thats right. So we talked to several sources about the story we worked on. What we found out was that top ukrainian officials actually reached out to washington to current and former u. S. Officials about their concerns, inquiring, hey, listen, you know, we got the trumps personal lawyer on tv talking about how he wants to go to ukraine and talking about investigations into the bidens. How is this going to affect the military aid that were expecting and, you know, possibly a white house visit between zelinski and trump. At the time trump signed a letter and deliver