National Security Council and worked as advisers to former ukraine envoy kurt volker. He was one of the first diplomats to provide testimony in the house investigation. Volker has since resigned from his government post. Anderson who worked for bolton expected to voice more of boltons alarm over giulianis influence on donald trump. From the wall street journals report on that, quote, mr. Boltons warning as described by mr. Anderson suggests the thenNational Security adviser was aware of giulianis influence over the president on ukraine policy several weeks before july 25th phone conversation in which trump would press his ukrainian counterpart to investigate joe biden and other matters echoing calls mr. Giuliani had made for months. Mr. Bolton in an unusual move didnt listen in on that call. Now that is adding to a damning cacophony of incriminating testimony up on capitol hill today in an unexpected twist Donald Trumps handpicked ambassador to russia John Sullivan testified as part of his confirmation hearing and broke with the president on whether it was appropriate to seek political dirt on rivals from foreign leaders. He acknowledged being aware of giulianis efforts in ukraine. And in doing so, sullivan draws secretary of state mike pompeo ever closer to the events in question. You were aware that there were individuals and forces outside of the state department seeking to smear ambassador yovanovitch. Is that correct . I was. And that you were seeking to remove her. And do you believe mr. Giuliani was one of those people . I believe so, yes. Serve the and represented the United States capably and admirably . I told her so. Yet, you were the one who told ambassador yovanovitch that she was being recalled early. Correct . I did. In your view was there any basis to recall ambassador yovanovitch early . Yes, there was. The president had lost confidence in her. The president had lost confidence in her. Yes. And you were told that by the secretary of state . I was. Did you ask why he lost confidence in her . Yes. And what was the answer . I was told that he had lost confidence in her. Do you think its ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit investigations into a domestic political opponent . Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, i dont think that would be in accord with our values. That unexpected preview of what the public phase of all this might look like is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Up on capitol hill, msnbc correspondent garrett haake. Phil rucker, White House Bureau chief for the Washington Post also joins us. Here at the table former democratic congresswoman donna edwards. Former chief of staff for the cia and the department of defense jeremy bash is here. And former senior fbi official Chuck Rosenberg is at the table. Let me start with you, garrett haake. So, that testimony we just showed you, we should explain who he is. That man is the handpicked nominee to be Donald Trumps ambassador to russia. His confirmation hearing was public, and he was pressed there by democrats who all seem to be on the same page of getting every sing el Trump Administration official on the record about whether or not the conduct in question asking for dirt on a domestic political rival is appropriate. He broke with the president and implicitly rebuked the conduct at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Was anybody expecting that, garrett . I dont think it was actually a huge surprise. I mean, the state department officials, those folks who have been there for long periods of time, this is american policy. This is not democratic policy which he was forced to defend here in this hearing today. This is standard american policy on the issues of russia, on the issues of, you know, domestic control of domestic elections. And so being pressed in this way should not be terribly shocking. Even republicans on that committee are a lot more traditional russia hawks. For example, youve got mitt romney, marco rubio who want to hear this same type of language whether it causes further problems with either of his two most direct superiors here in the persons of mike pompeo and donald trump, you know, i think he hopes to be far away in russia by the time that matters. The other thing that came out of this testimony today was confirmation of yovanovitchs telling of why she was fired that she was fired because nearly she had lost the confidence of the president , that this was nothing to do with her performance, that this was essentially part of a Smear Campaign against her also confirmed in public today. So all of these pieces continue to line up, whether its on the house side behind closed doors, or in this case the u. S. Senate in a public hearing. Jeremy bash, its just remarkable to see, as garrett just said, this is a direct report to mike pompeo testifying under oath about the long arm of giulianis corrupt Foreign Policy, that he was involved in it, he knew about it, and, yes, marie yovanovitch, the former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine was pulled back because donald trump had lost confidence in her that had nothing to do with her Job Performance and everything to do with Rudy Giulianis corrupt Foreign Policy. Thats right. And deputy secretary sullivan who is the nominee to be our ambassador to russia is no deep state operative. He was trumps political appointee. Hes been there since the beginning serving under both secretary tillerson and secretary pompeo. He is a reliable republican figure, well respected, well known and sort of part of the mainstream of republican Foreign Policy community here in washington. So for him to break with the president i think is significant. It also points to this larger issue which came out in the testimony today you saw, for example, kurt volkers advisers were up on capitol hill and we are going to be talking about that. But i was struck in the context of sullivan by Chris Anderson said that they prepared in november 2018 a statement condemning russia for its aggressive actions. And that was explicitly prohibited from being posted on the internet by the white house. Well, lets move on to the impeachment witnesses today. We started with mr. Sullivan because its just, i think, a preview of how the public phase of this is going to be so much more damaging to donald trump. But youre right. There were two more witnesses on capitol hill in the impeachment investigation. One of them, mr. Anderson, let me read a little bit about what he was expected to testify to because it brings john bolton the former National Security adviser who is now in a legal scuffle, i guess, or standoff with congress about whether or not he will appear. But his voice and his concerns are coming through loud and clear. He expressed concerns about giuliani and ukraine. This is someone who was in the room with john bolton, someone who was an eyewitness to giulianis influence. And just go a little deeper about how these witnesses sort of piece together what is a very clear picture of i think it was john taylor who testified to an irregular policy process. Well, the two witnesses today. One was catherine croft. One was Chris Anderson. They are both Career Foreign Service officers, people who have served democratic and republican administrations. They even took pains to say the testimony that they work for the United States of america advancing our interest abroad. What they saw what they witnessed and testified today was the irregular policy channel that ambassador to kiev bill taylor had talked about in his very detailed testimony last week. In that irregular channel, Rudy Giuliani was exerting pressure. And john bolton was expressing concern. Thats why i think its relevant because when somebody like Gordon Sondland who was the ambassador to the e. U. Said i never heard any concern. Thats clearly not true. We now know from these witnesses that john bolton himself was so concerned and that they went to the white house lawyers about the concern. It also annihilates this sort of construct that the white house would like to push out that its donald trump against the deep state figures. Garrett haake, i am told you have some breaking news on this topic. What do you got . Reporter yeah, john bolton is going to get a chance to say any of this next week. Three sources tell our Capitol Hill Team who have been fanned out across the capitol trying to track this down that bolton has been invited to come give his deposition next thursday, the 7th of november. He would be obviously the biggest, the potentially most damning witness yet should he choose to comply. Now this is an invite so far, not a subpoena. We know that his deputy is already has a case before a District Court here in d. C. That is supposed to get heard tomorrow about what he should do with his subpoena. But this is the formal ask according to three sources familiar for john bolton to show up here in the capitol and tell his side of the story on all of this. Well, thats a remarkable development. But i think, chuck, we can predict that a possible outcome would be a similar one that we saw with boltons deputy, mr. Kupperman, his lawyer filed a lawsuit late friday night asking a judge to decide which branch he should be responsive to, the Congressional Branch or the executive. Its actually not a crazy thing to ask. I mean, if you are the lawyer in that position, you know your client is being pulled in two directions. A president and the white house asserting executive privilege and a congress saying that we have issued you a valid subpoena and you need to show up and talk. And so what do you do in a situation like that . Well, you can either pick a side but you do that at your peril or you go to a federal judge and you askwins, you tell me. And i am willing to comply with your ruling. So i wouldnt be shocked if you saw mr. Bolton do something similar. Let me bring you in, phil rucker, on this breaking news. Invitations also extended in addition to Donald Trumps former National Security adviser john bolton who left the white house and in a somewhat acrimonious way about the invite for the taliban at camp david. That he was not in alignment with Rudy Giulianis rogue or in the words of diplomat bill taylor irregular Foreign Policy channel around ukraine. Hes been invited along with that nsc lawyer at the center of this scandal, mr. Eisenberg. He was on the receiving end of a phone call from the cia general counsel when she caught wind that plfrps a whistleblower who had concerns about Donald Trumps call with the president of ukraine. He was also on the receiving end of yesterdays witness mr. Vindman who went and saw him when he became concerned about that call and about some omissions perhaps from the transcript that far call. Talk about these developments just in the last hour on capitol hill, phil. Yeah, nicole, this is a big deal because both of these gentlemen you just talked about have the potential to deliver the most explosive testimony yet in the impeachment inquiry. Bolton, because it is his job to run the National Security process at the white house during this period, and he would be able to detail in very granular precise detail because of his rigor as a lawyer, because of the notetaking that he took in the government to be able to show how the process was irregular, how Rudy Giuliani was involved in ways he may not have been appropriate in boltons review. We should remember that one of boltons deputies fiona hill testified last week or it mightve been the week before that bolton had referred to what was going on in ukraine policy by Rudy Giuliani as a drug deal and spoke about it in pretty harrowing terms. So not only according to this testimony does bolton view this as irregular but he viewed it as dangerous, he was alarmed by it. And certainly if he goes up to capitol hill to share his own story, he could fill in a lot of those holes. Mr. Eisenberg is important for the same reasons, but also for trying to piece together the coverup inside the white house. Yeah. After the phone call with zelensky. It was eisenberg who apparently may have been involved in deciding what to do with that transcript, that rough transcript, locking it down in that more secure server, and some of the other allegations that have come forward in the testimony to date. Phil rucker, i am also in my brain is flashing that really haunting piece of reporting that you and your colleague bob costa did where a veteran republican senator described this whole thing as a horror movie. It would seem that it went from an rrated horror movie to something youd only find on the dark web. And lets just focus for a minute more on john boeltdon because he is not a witness that the president is going to be able to easily condemn or discredit. You cant call john bolton a nevertrumper because he supported the president s election and he served for more than a year as the president s National Security adviser in the government. He is a rockribbed conservative. He has a very clear ideology. Hes been supportive of republican political candidates including many members of congress and of the senate for many years now and continues to do so through his Political Action committee. And so its going to be very difficult for trump and his allies to portray bolton as, you know, some sort of radical lefty or somebody whos out to get the president because he actually served for the president. And i dont think its an understatement to say that john boltons testimony could be the difference between four or five republican senators supporting conviction and getting to a number that nears 20. Well, i think this is really significant. Already we have multiple witnesses who place john bolton in critical at critical stages during this entire fiasco. And i think that john bolton is not going to be vilified in the same kind of way, people know him. John bolton also is going to survive beyond this trump presidency. I think that some of that weighs in on a number of these witnesses who are not going to have their beds made by going down for donald trump. And i think john bolton is one of those. And, you know, and i think to the extent that this would ever make it into a public hearing, it would, i think, be very, very difficult for a number of republicans to be able to say no. Yeah. And, garrett, let me bring this back to the minutebyminute reporting here. I believe adam schiff is already on the record saying we are not waiting for this lawsuit that Chuck Rosenberg and i were discussing. It would seem that by offering this invisitation youve got three sources saying the invitation has been extended. If john bolton or his lawyer, mr. Cooper, have any sort of eye toward history, they may be open to whatever this judge decides. Is that the sense up there . And it would seem that in terms of locking down the evidence, there are plenty of people, fiona hill testified to john boltons conduct and statements in meetings. You had colonel vindman yesterday testifying to john boltons statements. It would seem that the appearances could be symbolic in some respects. Reporter well, i suppose thats true, at least behind closed doors. Now as to this hearing we are expecting to have a judge weigh in on this as soon as tomorrow afternoon. So we wont have to wait long to see whether the Judicial Branch of the government, you know, sides in favor of the house or the white house in this dispute over whether or not bolton or his deputy would come and testify. There is some legal difference between the two, especially because bolton is of course no longer part of the federal government. But boltons value, you could argue, if indeed he is as good of a witness as we are speculating that he might be. He is somebody who you do not have to introduce to the American People. If you have paid attention to american politics in the last three president ial administrations, you know who john bolton is. Hes not someone who is a minor level state department official. Hes not someone who you have to, you know, educate the American People on where they come from. He is already a familiar face. So thats where a lot of his value comes from. But i will just add one caveat to all this. John bolton is someone whos been an unapologetic defender of a strong presidency. I think we should be careful before we assume that despite his policy differences or the other things he said about Rudy Giuliani that hed be so quick to throw the white house under the bus here. This is someone whos made a career in part of defending the executives prerogative here. And i dont know if that changes with how this executive mightve used that prerogative. I think thats a good caution. I think its also an unknown, phil rucker, whether or not we will ever see john bolton. I think he and the legal strategy charted by his attorney last friday night on behalf of mr. Kupperman, boltons deputy. I think theyre happy to leave that in the hands of the judge in that decision. But i want to just i mean, so much of boltons conduct has been brought to light. And some of it by your colleague greg miller who has an incredible piece of reporting in todays Washington Post about two meetings. Your colleague greg miller writes in a pair of volatile meetings senior white house officials including then National Security adviser john bolton. President trump was seeking to use the power of his office to pressure ukraine to deliver damaging inform