Have it. But were not going to wait. We cant wait seven months to aju adjudicate these kinds of cases. A lot of developments to talk about as the president gets ready to head to florida for a Campaign Rally before spending the rest of the thanksgiving holiday at his maralago resort. Joining me now from capitol hill is garrett haake. Also with us, former u. S. Ambassador to russia, michael mcfaul, an msnbc International Affairs analyst. Good to see you guys. Garrett, what do we know so far about the Judiciary Committees hearing scheduled for december 4th . Im told that this hearing is something we should look at as a 30,000 foot view on impeachment. The Judiciary Committee membership hope that they will have intels report on everything that we know about this ukraine scandal by then, but even if they dont, this hearing will be to set the table. What is a high crime and misdemeanor. What is an impeachable offense. And perhaps, if they have the report by then, some answering of the questions of, does what is laid out in this report rise to that standard . But this is Judiciary Committee essentially setting the table for what could be a series of hearings on the ukraine issue itself, starting by answering that fundamental question, is what is an impeachab ablable of for the president of the United States. Well start to see that work beginning on wednesday, december 4th. Then the federal judges ruling on don mcgahns testimony. A lot of talk about the inquiry, the testimony. The judges order if upheld could potentially lead to. The biggest question is does this change in any way the timeline for the democrats . Not as of this moment. We know the doj has requested a stay on this decision. The administration is likely to appeal. If youre trying to move the impeachment inquiry along at an expeditious fashion as democrats have been trying to do, having a bunch of Court Rulings still to come on this makes that difficult. Based on the conversations i had last week with democrats, this week with some of the aides who are still in town, the general feeling here is they want to keep moving as planned here, and if mcgahn becomes available through the process of this impeachment inquiry, thats great. If this ruling shakes loose other witnesses, thats even better. But that theyre not going to stop what theyre doing here and wait for don mcgahn, who is, of course, not really privy to or relevant to the ukraine question. Remember, democrats were seeking his testify related to what he told Robert Mueller months ago. So the impeachment inquiry will likely move on pace here unless the courts do the democrats another favor here and move very quickly on this. Ambassador, the secretary of state said today that he doesnt have a lot to say in respect to ukraine, and he sidestepped those questions. Others who didnt testify include Mick Mulvaney, john bolton, mark esper, rick perry, russell vogt. Was this always going to be a tough sell because it involves a Foreign Government . And are democrats say theres no sense waiting and hoping for a smoking gun when the president s sorters have shown time and again theyre all in. I wonder how you read this. Well, first, i do think the evidence is overwhelming for what happened. So without any of those people testifying, the basic facts after two weeks of impeachment hearings were never challenged. That said, impeachment is a really important thing for the United States, for our constitution, and the fact that we still have all those people you just listed that have not testified, i think is wrong. I think they should testify. And im not so sure im not a political person, right . I dont understand the politics of it, but from the constitutional perspective, i would like to see all of these people testify, and in particular, john bolton, i think, has a really big decision to make right now. This new finding with respect to mcgahn, i think gives him the window of opportunity to testify if he wants to. The idea before was that he was going to somehow break the law by testifying. Now, he can if he wants to, and most certainly we all know he has a lot that he could share. You know, i also want to play for you something mike pompeo said today he refused to quash that discredited yet often repeated Conspiracy Theory that it was ukraine, not russia, that meddled in the 2016 election. Here it is. America should leave no stone unturned. Whatever nation it is that we have information that might suggest there might have been interference, or an effort to nrlt fear in our elections, we have an obligation to make sure the American People get to go to the ballot box, cast their ballots in a way than is unimpacted by the malevolent actors trying to undermine our western democratic values. Ambassador, no mention of russia, no mention of the Intelligence Committee findings, no mention of the intelligence communitys findings. What do you make of that . Its deeply disturbing. When he says malevolent athers, hes talking about ukraine, a country that had a democratic revolution in 2014 and elected another reformer. Why is he using the word malevolent to suggest when theyre exposing corruption in their own country, thats a malevolent actor . Secondly, if there are stones to be unturned, you dont think we would have turned them over by now . Give me a break. The evidence is very thin when it comes to ukraine. And third, if were going to go through all actors that interfered in our election, lets add some others. Nigel farage, for instance, a citizen of the united kingdom, appeared at a trump rally. And endorsed president candidate rally at a trump rally. Why is secretary pompeo not leading an investigation into what Great Britain might have done . So these are difficult questions. Dont get me wrong, but the notion that it was ukraine next to russia and theres just some symmetry between them i think is a really incorrect way to describe what happened in 2016. I just think its irresponsible. Secretary pompeo knows the difference between an oped by a uk ambassador and what the gru, the Russian Intelligence Organization did, military intelligence, excuse me, did in 2016. Ambassador michael mcfaul, garrett haake, thanks both of you. Much appreciated. The administration had made it clear from day one they were going to fight anything related to impeachment. And last hour, they even turned the traditional turkey pardoning ceremony into kind of a politically charged joke. Thankfully, bread and butter have been specially raised by the jacksons to remain calm under any condition, which will be very important because they have already received subpoenas to appear in adam schiffs basement on thursday. The democrats are accusing me of being too soft on turkey. But bread and butter, i should note that unlike previous witnesses, you and i have actually met. I want to bring in barrett burger, a former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, and charlie savage, washington correspondent for the New York Times and also an msnbc contributor. You can make jokes about it, and maybe there were probably people in the audience, including his daughter, who thought that stuff was pretty funny. Having said that, the judges ruling on don mcgahn was scathing. When you say we dont have a king here, right, the president is not a king, we dont know where this court fight will end. We know its continuing, already several moves have been made, but having said that, is this an indication to you that the president sort of stonewall defense, delay, delay, delay may be failing, or is this something that could indeed drag on well into 2020 and hell have the last laugh . Well, its a great question. I think while this strategy of saying were not going to comply with any subpoenas, were going to force the democrats to fight all of this in court, while it may ultimately fail, you may get a court of appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court to say no, this is not a proper basis. They may win in the shortterm just by matter of timing. Because as we already saw, even this one Court Opinion took about seven months to come out. Even though, you know, this was a 120something page opinion, very well reasoned so one can imagine it took some time for this judge to come up with all the rationale, it was seven months that the democrats just dont have right now. So while the strategy may fail, ultimately, and they may get a court of appeals to issue an opinion saying this is not a valid legal basis, they may win just by the delay. The delay, exactly. Charlie, hearing pompeo today adding to the many republicans who have posed that debunked narrative that ukraine was responsible for the hack of the Democratic National committee emails, does that tell us pretty much all we need to know about the gops impeachment strategy, which is back the president . Well, certainly, that is the republican strategy. I would say its one of many tactics that all seem to be in place simultaneousimultaneously. Theres the arguments that trump didnt do it at all. Then theres the argument that if he did do it, pressure ukraine to open investigations, it was war nlted. I would say the suggestion that ukraine was behind the 2016 hacking that discredited theory falls into the second category. He did it but it was warranted. There was a good reason to ask for these investigations. And the insinuations about the bidens and burisma also falls into that category. The third category is maybe he did it, maybe it was wrong, but we should really let the voters decide. It doesnt rise to an impeachable offense. I imagine well see all of these deployed at the same time all targeted at different audiences. To the trump base and the president himself, who are going to be more receptive to that message of he didnt do it, or if he did do it, it was righteous. As you know, the chairman, adam schiff, says his committee is compiling a list of noncompliance with lawful subpoenas. That could be in their minds another offense that the Judiciary Committee can consider le drafting as an article of impeachment, and he said the committee is open to the possibility that further evidence will come to light, but the evidence of wrongdoing and misconduct by the president gathered to date is clear and hardly in dispute. Charlie, giving the timetable the committee has given, submitting the report to the judiciary, now we know when the judiciary is going to start, really, is there any more room for new developments or some kind of blockbuster information or testimony that were not expecting . Well, this seems like the democrats are moving forward on the presumption there wont be, what they have is what theyre going to get. The judicial process moves too slowly to be of any use in this fastmoving situation. That big headline generating 120page ruling yesterday would have been a lot more impactful had the judge issued it back in september or october. Instead of the end of november. Maybe a shorter opinion but a faster one might have been more warranted in this case. Theyre not going to count on getting anything more. But i think mr. Schiff has also said that even after they deliver this report to the Judiciary Committee and things shift to that venue, if more information comes to light, if john bolton has a change of heart and decides to tell what he knows and he keeps hinting coyly he knows something, they will be willing to add that to the pile, but theyre not going to count on anything more coming in at this point. Although john boltons potential testimony, and we put a big asterisk there, barrett, is one of the Big Questions that comes out of this, because john boltons attorney released a statement saying in mcgahn, meaning the ruling, the house Judiciary Committee emphasized to the District Court that the information it sought from mr. Mcgahn, quote, did not involve the sensitive topics of National Security or foreign affairs. Therefore, any passing references in the mcgahn decision instead of courts opinion to president ial Communications ConcerningNational Security matters are not authoritative on the validity of testimonial immunity for close white house advisers. Thats legal speak for that doesnt apply to us. But judge jackson said her ruling applies to all claims of testimonial immunity, writing nor does it make any difference whether the aides in question are privy to National Security matters or work slowly on domestic issues. Whos right . Well, the judge really shot down this defense, i guess, of john bolton saying this doesnt apply to me, but its important to note that the judges opinion does leave room, that there mail be particular issues that a close adviser would be able to exert some sort of privilege over if he or she actually showed up to testify. Her opinion is not saying there is, you know, nothing is off the table here. They have to testify about everything wholesale. It does leave room that there may be particular issues. What its careful to say is theres just no absolute blanket immunity. They dont have a reason not to show up at all, but there may be particular things that either because it is classified or there is some additional privilege on there that they wouldnt to have testify about. Big picture, is this likely to have impact down the road much more than the impeachment . Definitely, yes. This could be potentially a very big ruling. It is. Absolutely it is. And the precedent this will set is historic. The Trump Administration is not the first to try to assert these claims of absolute immunity. This has been done in the past. To have guidance from the courts on whether or not future administrations can do this is really significant. It may really affect the contours of how we see the powers of the executive. Appreciate it. I also want to bring in democratic congresswoman from michigan, Brenda Lawrence. Good to see you, congresswoman. Good to see you. Theres a whole bunch of new polls. I want to show you some of them that shows the country continues to be split over impeachment. This is cnns latest polling. 50 of americans support removal from office. 43 oppose it. A Politico Morning Consult poll showing support for impeachment is 48 . 43 oppose. You have been clear, you support impeachment. But not removal . So i am 100 in support. I was one of the early in 2017 members of congress to sign on for impeachment. We have had a very thorough investigation and the crimes of impeachment has been documented. And im moving forward with that. My major concern, chris, is with the Republican Senate members. Those who have, after we have completed our finding in the judiciary and hopefully well take a vote and i will be voting for impeachment, i am concerned that there will be this underbelly thats happening to exonerate the president. And the thing that just sends chills up my spine is that history will reflect that we had an official action of congress that just put their head in the sand and ignored all of these egregious actions of this president. And my question was to the Republican Senate, is that at minimum, because many of them will tell me off the camera and in the corner, theyll whisper, yes, it wasnt right, but its not impeachable. I say at minimum, you have to say you must censure this president so no president coming into office will think and assume this type of behavior is acceptable. It is a shock to our democracy. It is a slap in the face to all of us here where we bring in a foreign entity yet, congresswoman, and i know you know what folks on the right are saying right now. They say you flipped. Im going to show you, there are headlines. One says swing state demflips on impeachment. House democrat backs down from impeachment. There we see them in the daily caller and news max. White house counselor Kellyanne Conway said youre just the start of the flips, and she called you out by name. Ill going to play it. I dont know what will be in the articles of impeachment, bultd we do know we have seen nothing through these hearings that would bring us any closer to high crimes and misdemeanors that justifies impeaching and removing a democratically elected president from office, and i really, i was very struck by i was struck by everything congresswoman Brenda Lawrence said yesterday, and good for her for her courage. Shes in a heavily democratic district. I would assume shes a loyal democratic member, but she made very clear that were so close to the next election that that gives her pause as well. She went on to say that increasingly, that is what is happening, and will continue to happen. I predict, as democrats go home for the thanksgiving holiday and constituents logically ask them what have you done lately . The answer is im busy impeaching the president. What would you say to Kellyanne Conway and to the newspapers, the tv folks, radio folks on the right who say that you are the face of people flipping on impeachment . The fact is i have not flipped. The fact is that our country is so divided. And for me, impeachment is the process that we and i must take in my sworn oath to this country. I am so troubled by this deliberate attempt to minimize the actions of this president. And the record should not reflect in history that this president was exonerated when all of the facts are pointing to this. Does it make you mad that theyre presenting it that way . Its very disappointing because its a slap to where i stand. I have not flipped. But i was trying to bring some reason to the senate republicans. At minimum, you must say that this president has some accountability for his actions. And i put out to the public, you have to consider at minimum a censure of his action. And so they flipped it and said something that i didnt say. And for the record, im 100 convince