Dozens of hours of closed door and new testimony from a former congressional testimony that trumps phone call was just one Trump Campaign official seems to moment in a far reaching contradict the president on operation involving the president s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, two Giuliani Associates who have since been indicted partially for their role in the scheme. White house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, the attorney general, the secretary of energy, the secretary of state, the Vice President of the United States, and of course President Trump himself. Tomorrow two opening witnesses are expected to describe the scope of the scheme to extort ukraine. That includes bill taylor who was the acting u. S. Ambassador of ukraine at this very moment. West point grad who was awarded the bronze star for service in vietnam. Hes a career diplomat and worked in republican and democratic administrations since all the way back in 1985. He served in afghanistan shortly after the u. S. Invaded that country mooch he oversaw reconstruction in iraq. He previously served once before as the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine under george w. Bush. Last month he testified he was reluctant to go back to kiev because what he had learned under Rudy Giuliani. And, quote, are we now saying that Security Assistance and a white house meeting are conditioned on investigations, and i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a political campaign. Taylor also told congress he believes the origin of the idea to extort the ukrainian president came from Rudy Giuliani to benefit President Trump. Taylor will be joined at the witness table by Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent. Kent also a diplomat whos been part of the Foreign Service for almost 30 years. He currently right now oversees state Department Policy towards ukraine. Kent testified extensively about Rudy Giulianis role in the scheme and his deposition telling congress, quote, mr. Giuliani had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information. It was clear he had influenced the president in terms of the way the president thought of ukraine. Two men will be appearing before the 22member House Intelligence Committee in the same room where Hillary Clinton testified before the benghazi committee. Before any of the Committee Members will be allowed to ask questions Committee Chair adam schiff along with attorneys Daniel Goldman will get 45 minutes to question taylor and kent and then be followed for 45 minutes for Ranking Member nunes and the minorities attorneys steve caster. He prosecuted organized crime syndicates and also a former msnbc contributor and has appeared on this very show a whole bunch of times. Republican attorney steve caster spent 14 years as a lawyer for republicans on the overscythe committee. During the Obama Administration he was part of the benghazi investigations and the probe into the justice departments operation fast and furious. And wellgeet to see them tomorrow in the highest profile presentation evidence weve had so far. It seems worth pointing something out thats obvious but can get easily lost in the day to day news cycle. Impeaching a president is a big deal. The spectacle is likely to be compelling but its also a really true grave undertaking. Its not wrong when critics talk about how serious it is to attempt to remove a president whos elected. And it does not speak well for the state of our country we have come to a point where this process seems so urgently exceedingly necessary. I want to bring in congressman sean patrick maloney. Congressman, its good to have you. How are you preparing for tomorrow . Well, you know, we are big believers in preparation, so im reviewing the testimony of the key witnesses, making sure im up to speed on what ambassador taylor testified to the first time. But, you know, really, chris, the important thing tomorrow is not any of us on the dais, its not the staff. The important thing tomorrow is this witness. It is all of these witnesses and their story and their evidence and facts. And what i hope for tomorrow is that all of us get out of the way, and that respectfully includes all of you folks in the media. And we let these dedicated Public Servants, a guy like bill taylor, you know, 40 years in the Foreign Service, vietnam veteran, served as an infantry officer in vietnam, west point graduate, highly credible, knowledgeable, experienced Public Servant appointed by a republican president let him tell his story. Let him tell everything he knows and let the public see it unfiltered. And so i think the best preparation in some ways is going to be to exercise some restraint and let these witnesses tell the story. Restraint can be difficult for members of congress who are given to talking, no shade there. I am, too. Im a cable news host. But you will have these staff attorneys asking questions, which is a sort of break from normal procedure, i think its fair to say. Take me through why that is the choice thats been made and why you think thats important and can help the witnesses tell their story. Well, because of what i just said. Because these witnesses really have an important story to tell. And its not a happy story. Its a sad story of the abuse of power at the highest levels of the United States government. It should break peoples heart that this president , any american president would engage in this kind of shabby and seedy conduct for his own grimy political objectives. And what the staff can do is in a disciplined extended way guide the witness through the testimony that they have to share, and really again let the witness speak and do so over an extended period of time of 45 minutes or so so it doesnt get all chopped up in five minute bunches, and the whole goal at least in my mind is to let this witness explain to the American Public what they know and let the public judge for themselves. You know, after the full Mueller Report or at least the sort of redacted version of the Mueller Report was released, there was a split in the Democratic Party caucus, in the house about impeachment, about whether what was recounted in that Mueller Report or maybe some other things the president had done and necessitated a formal impeachment inquiry or not. You i believe were on the show saying you you wanted to take it slow, you were not convinced. Obviously you changed. Take me through where you were six months ago and where you are now. Well, you know, actually my position was he deserved it. The question was whether tactically the best way to hold him accountable was to put the c country through an impeachment process that was going to be based based on a report by a special counsel who found no provable conspiracy though a ton of evidence of obstruction of justice but whether balancing it was good to leave that accountable or through oversight, criminal liability late down the road. But, you know, this is totally new ball game. This has nothing to do in the most basic sense with the Mueller Probe at all. Its not a change. Its an evaluation of a new set of facts that are stark, that are extremely damaging to the president , that paint an unmistakable picture National Security. And what the president did here cannot be okay. It kaept be okay for this president , any president to go out and extort the assistance of a foreign leader for an advantage in an american political election. We let that happen and we set a devastating precedent, and an election itself wont even cure it in some sense. The congress has to take a stand. This is precisely bribery, foreign interference in the american system, its precisely the kind of offense the founders contemplated when they drafted the impeachment provisions into the constitution. This is the way to hold the president accountable under these facts. Member of the House Intelligence Committee which is holding the first public impeachment hearing tomorrow, thank you so much for taking a little time tonight. My pleasure. Joining me now is a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of new york where she worked side by side with Daniel Goldman, the attorney that will lead the questioning for House Democrats tomorrow. And also joining me jill who worked alongside Daniel Goldman. I know him a bit from his appearances on my show. How do you think somebody like him approaches this role which is sort of a new one . It is the United States congress, but it is hearing or triallike. Yeah, it is certainly a new role, but its one that hell be comfortable with. There is good reason why chairman schiff brought in a seasoned veteran prosecutor, and danny goldman, i think, is among the best of the bunch. Hes going to be direct. Hes going to be focused. As congressman maloney said, hes going to make it about the witness. But he will direct the witness. I dont want to say hell lead the witness, but hell allow the witness or witnesses to tell their stories in a shape and in a form that makes sense, that is impactful, that has emotional appeal and that is unburdened by distraction or irrelevant detail. So i think hes a great pick for this. And i think he will allow the stories to be told. Jill, i saw some reporting about theres some polling about how democrats and donald trump are handling impeachment, and democrats are 52 say theyre bad at handling impeachment, 48 good, the numbers worse for President Trump. It strikes me here that theres an asymmetry which is that democrats want this to be grachb and serious and focused and republicans want people to come away concluding this is circus, this is crazy and they may have the wherewithal to do that. Where do you see the control of the flow of the day going tomorrow . I fear that the republicans will do as you suggested, which is try to make this a circus. I hope that americans will see that for what it is, which is a diversion from what the facts are and a diversion from what they should be hearing. I cannot but imagine that the questions asked will be very limited and that the answers will be where the focus is. We know already from what weve heard about the testimony behind closed doors that there is a very compelling story line. And i think thats what we need to focus on is that the story needs to be told. The best thing that happened is getting rid of the fiveminute rule which was a real impediment to america hearing a narrative. This way you can ask the question and let the witness tell the story and let us know who and what and when and why and how they felt about it. And that we can understand the danger that was always in their minds to what the president was doing, a danger to our National Security that really threatens democracy, and thats why tomorrow is so important. And i hope everyone will tune in and listen. One thing thats interesting here, and this i think relates to what is kind of courtroom and trial practice, these are all folks who have given extensive testimony already. Theyve already given sworn testimony. A lot of that has has been released. What is that sort of approach for someone who is in danny goldmans role where you have this testimony before him and what youre trying to do with it when youre now in this public setting . Look, he and the other questioners have laid the groundwork here. They have set the foundation. They have asked all the painstaking questions of the witnesses, theyve established the facts. And theres thousands of pages of transcripts as youve said. Their task tomorrow is to whittle it down, to pare down the important facts and to make sure that those get out and they are told in a linear and impactful way. And so they have done a lot of the work. And then tomorrow will be the presentation. Its said that you can lose a jury in 20 minutes. And hopefully the American Public will have longer Attention Span than that, but the narrative does need to come out quickly. And so rather than i think a lot of the questioning that we saw that was sort of you know, had to establish this fact and that fact and go along in a particular way tomorrow i think we can probably expect some right out of the box, you know, some hardhitting questions that go right to it, that capture the attention and that, you know, will also tell the story but will tell it in a more attention grabbing way. Jill, theres just in the last ten minutes i think the House Intelligence Committee has released a witness schedule past this week. Its going to be Marie Yovanovitch on friday and then jennifer williams, alexander vindman, curt volker and tim morrismanch and Russias Deputy fiona hill. It sounds like three of those witnesses i believe were requested by the minority and granted. Thats quite a bit of testimony were going to get over the next week and half. It is a lot, but if handled properly lets look at what happens in any trial, in an organized trial case. Whoever thought my organized crime will be as relevant as my watergate experience, and it is. But i think its not that hard for a jury to stay focused on what the questions are and what the answer are. And so far from what youve read of the summary of witnesses, its very clear what the story is how the pieces of the puzzle fit together. And so what i think will happen is the the democrats are going to put forward each part of the bricks, you know, brick one that says this is the fact. And then the second witness who corroborates one of those facts and a third witness who corroborates. And all together youre going to see a very impenetrable story line thats going to be very hard for the republicans to undo, and they have to Pay Attention to the facts and stop the nonsense with things like taking over the scif. Thank you both for sharing your expertise tonight. Coming up john bolton is yet to testify before the house, but it appears hell tell you just about anything you want to know if youre paying the right price. Know if youre paying the right price. En you rent from national. Its kind of like playing your own version of best ball. Because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if its a better car class than the one you reserved. So no matter what, youre guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] vo go national. Go like a pro. See what i did there . Former National Security advisor john bolton has been playing an interesting game with regard to the impeachment inquiry. His deputies and people loyal to him, associated with him have testified before the committee including former National Security senior director fiona hill who offered boltons damning assessment of the entire ukraine scheme, including the legendary phrase he did not want to be part of, quote, whatever drug deal u. S. Ambassador eu Gordon Sondland and white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney are cooking up on this. But bolton was a noshow last week for a deposition before the Impeachment Committee itself. One of his former deputies went to court to get a ruling on whether or not he can testify. Bolton says hes willing to testify if the court delirs a way in that case. Just last week boltons own lawyer teased he has a story to tell. Saying he was involved in many relerant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed. But what john bolton does seem focused on is making sure he can turn that information into money. He landed a book deal reportedly worth 2 million, and according to exclusive reporting by my colleagues carol lee and stephanie ruhle. Set the scene here. What was the context in which bolton was talking to this crew . He was talking to a bunch of hedge fund managers. It was a Morgan Stanley event last night, and he was basically the keynote speaker. And what he was told is this is offtherecord, those were the ground rules and we want you to be canal to speak candidly and bolton did. And he said a number of things that even people that were in atte attendance of his speech said they found surprising. There was some shock in the room particularly when bolton mentioned President Trumps soninlaw Jared Kushner and daughter ivanka in a somewhat disparaging way to basically say, you know, if trump were to win another term that they would try to get him to recast his legacy in a way that makes him tilt towards the liberal end of the spectrum, specifically he said according to people in the room that they would convince him to nominate a liberal like lawrence tribe to the supreme court. And it was described as him kind of talking about them with an eye rolling kind of way. Meaning, it suggests that he didnt think much of them and their positions in the white house. I mean, i dont think thats a very good prediction on the part of mr. Bolton, but he was working in the white house. W