Issue. It is urgent analysis. It is not something like, can you consider moving this policy over here. It is my paper straw, given. Paper straws are great, electric cars are great, until we deal with fossil fuels none of it matters. Exactly. You had Vaughn Hillyard on earlier talking about Jeff Sessions. Donald trump has a his story of letting people back into his orbit after they left in a negative way. You know some of them. I think he will. If you ask if it is between Jeff Sessions and roy moore . No, doug jones. Or doug jones . Hes going with Jeff Sessions. It might happen. I think he is going to go with Jeff Sessions rather than lose a republican supporter in the senate. Im katie tur. It is 11 00 a. M. Out west and 2 00 p. M. In washington where despite some government officials close to the president declaring absolute immunity to avoid testifying to congress, others are painting a damning picture of what happened around ukraine. Today is day 46 of the impeachment inquiry and here is what is happening. In thousands of page thousands of pages of closeddoor testimony released by the democrats this week, eight current and former Administration Officials describe a Shadow Campaign led by Rudy Giuliani to force ukraine to investigate the president s political rivals in order to receive millions in military aid and a meeting at the white house. Former ambassador to ukraine bill taylor said by midjuly it was becoming clear to him that the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditioned on investigations of burisma and alleged ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections. George kent, the Deputy Assistant secretary who oversaw ukraine policy, said taylor told him Eu Ambassador sondland said trump wanted nothing less than president zelensky to go to the microphone and situate clinton, biden. He told a top ukrainian official they needed to start investigating burisma in order to get the military aid. Now add Lieutenant ColonelAlexander Vindman on the july call between President Trump and zelensky. He said there was no doubt what President Trump was asking for. Investigate the bidens to get a meeting at the white house. Vindman said he went to nsa lawyers, so did fiona hill, the top russia expect on the nsc. She said the call and the president s demand were her worst nigh matyor, to basically turn a white house meeting into an asset. Behind it all according to witness testimony was grRudy Giuliani. He was mentioned 480 times alone by sondland and by former special envoy to ukraine volker. Sondland said giuliani was swirling around somewhere. Volker said he believed giuliani was interested in Vice President bidens son and that the allegations giuliani peddled were selfserving and not credible. Marie yovanovitch said she was ousted bay Smear Campaign led by giuliani in part because she believes she was getting in the way of the investigations giuliani wanted. George kent accused giuliani of running a campaign of slander against her. Mckinley said one of the reasons he hit the state department was because of the way yovanovitch was treated. That just happened this week in the testimony that was released. Joining me from capitol hill is nbc news correspondent geoff bennett, New York Times political reporter and msnbc political analyst nick com ofasori, and counsel to the United Nations hagar oshari. Hundred of pages were of testimony were released, dozens of hours of testimony to go along with it. The picture painted by the witnesses is all the same. It is the same story, Rudy Giuliani, Shadow Campaign, get ukraine to investigate the bidens, investigate 2016 and money will be released and zelensky can get a meeting at the white house. Yes. We got two more transcripts today. What did they add on . Katie, it is such a great point you make because today is a day in with President Trump earlier on the south lawn tried to refocus the countrys attention to the particulars of a specific phone call, the phone call in question on july 25th that President Trump says shows he did nothing wrong. Now President Trump said he might release the transcript of an earlier phone call. Today house investigators dropped into our laps the testimony of two more witnesses who point to what you just spelled out, that the phone calls themselves did not exist in isolation, that there was a coordinated campaign, a concerted effort led by President Trump and his outside attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the ukrainians to open investigations on President Trumps political rivals. But fiona hill, the top russian advisor on the nsc, had a couple of things to say about the phone call too as you mentioned. She said it confirmed her worst fears and nightmares that the president was turning the white house meeting into something of an asset. So what we learned from her testimony is that giuliani and sondland undercut the normal processes for establishing and elevating ukraine policy on the nsc, and that when she flagged it her superiors did not respond in kind. Lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman goes a step further. He says he raised red flags not once but twice and that john eisenberg, the nsc lawyer at the time, told him not to say anything about it. Beyond that you get a picture of how republicans comported themselves during this testimony. In hills testimony you see where matt gaetz tried to storm into the room. He, of course, is not a member of the relevant committees. He had to be pushed out. In vindmans testimony you see where republicans time and time again tried to get him to mention the name of the whistleblower. Vindman says time and time again he doesnt know who the whistleblower is. The strategy, im told, by republicans is that they thought the name would show up here or at least bread crumbs would show up in the transcripts that when it became public the whistleblowers identity would be released, katie. It is the same story over and over, nick. Well, look, this is actually a game of hangman in reverse, right. The word is already spelled out, quid pro quo. The only question is on any given occasion who is going to fill in which dot and which letter and spell it out. We basically have it. It is a quid pro quo and either witness has come forward to firm up the basic narrative, which is they offered the package of aid and well, some republicans are saying that this hasnt tied yet to the president. I question that because the president released a transcript where he said these very things. So how is it not being tied to the president . I mean it is. Hes on the transcript, he was on the call, which he keeps claiming is a perfect call. A plain reading of the minimal transcript we have, which is not a full transcript, is that in fact he was part of this whole plan, he public defender it and directed it and set people on to carry it out. It is his. Hagar, i know you were part of the obama administration. You are going to disagree on policy with the Trump Administration, that is a fact, but is this an issue of policy, what was happening at the National Security council . Is this just a disagreement with those who had worked in the diplomatic field for their careers disagreeing on fundamental policy with the Trump Administration and getting angry about it and complaining . It is funny. I was actually a Civil Servant for ten years before i became a political appointee under president obama and all of us were trained with the notion that we serve at the pleasure of the president. It is a common phrase in washington, d. C. Meaning, we serve regardless of party, and thats ingrained in us. Seen though, yes, i was at the end, at the very end of my career i was politically appointed, but that doesnt mean even that i agreed with all of president obamas policies, and there have been steps in Foreign Policy of President Trumps that i have supported and steps i criticized. The issue you have now is that it is categorically wrong, regardless of whether it is led by a democrat or a republican and it is a travesty you have on the hill why do you say it is categorically wrong. Because you should be trained and thats why people like fiona hill and Lieutenant Colonel vindman and all of the ambassadors that have come in, yovanovitch, taylor, the reason theyve all seen this, the reason john bolton said giuliani is a hand grenade and he wanted hill to go to the lawyers and tell the story is because youre trained as a National Security professional, as someone that understands Foreign Policy that you cant use u. S. Funds for your own personal game. There is a separation. If it is categorically wrong why isnt john bolton going to the hill to say what he told many of his coworker, that he thought it was a drug deal, he thought giuliani was a hand grenade . If he is a National Security adviser, and he has been for some republican administrations, why is he not coming out and voluntarily saying it is not okay . Youre right. Unfortunately, we now live in an era where politics entered National Security and Foreign Policy. I dont want to be naive about it. It is not to say political elites dont normally help guide Foreign Policy, but it is so bad now and theres such a political rift in washington, you see it with Lindsey Graham saying he wont read the transcripts, right, advertising his ignorance so that the republicans can stay in power. John bolton doesnt want to go because he doesnt want to currie favor to the democrats, theres no way. Unfortunately it has become a political fight and it shouldnt be. It is so obviously something that the republicans need to inform themselves on to make the right choice. I do think that if bolton i think he said this, if he is subpoenaed he will go, but i think it is a game. I think he is saying i dont want to help you voluntarily but if i have to i will. Jeff let me go back to you for one question. Mick mulvaney decided not to show up today despite a subpoena compelling him to show up. Yes. He is one of many close to the president refusing to do so. We were just talking about john bolton. Do the democrats feel hampered at all in their ability to get answers by having so much stonewalling among those who are close to President Trump . No. Lets keep it 100 real about that subpoena, right. That subpoena was a trap. Democrats knew that Mick Mulvaney was not going to show up on the hill whether he was compelled by subpoena or otherwise. The subpoena lays a paper trail so democrats, if they choose to, can draw up another article of impeachment on obstruction. Ive lost count now of how many white house officials defied and ignored subpoenas compelling them to come testify. One of the questions i often get is why arent democrats enforcing these subpoenas. The reason is theres no time for it. They could pursue civil contempt, which would punt it to the courts for weeks, months, potentially years. If they went through an avenue of criminal contempt it goes to bill barrs office to prosecute and thats not going to happen. What theyre saying is, fine, if you dont want to abide by your oath of office, thats up to you, thats for you to live with. Theyre going to draw an adverse inference, which means they say if Mick Mulvaney had information that could clear President Trump, Mick Mulvaney would be banging down the doors of the scif and the secure area two floors beneath me here to tell what he has to tell. Because hes not doing that, they are assuming what he is withholding is damaging information. So theyre making that inference, and then theyre also drawing up his lack of appearance here, using it as potential grounds for an article of impeachment on obstruction of congress. Katie. Geoff bennett, what a week. I hope you get some sleep this weekend. Nick, always good to see you, my friend. Thank you so much for your insight and expertise. Joining me colorado democratic senator and 2020 president ial candidate michael bennet. He is a member of the intelligence and finance committees. Senator, thank you for being here. We are you are learning about what the house is doing at the same time that we are learning about it, and im sure that if you havent read all of the testimony you would be forgiven, but im sure you have read much of the headlines and excepts we have read. What is the conclusion you are coming to . I think the conclusion day after day after day is that everything that the whistleblower said in their whistleblowing complaint has been corroborated by witness after witness after witness, that President Trump asked the ukrainian president to start an investigation against his political opponent, joe biden, and he threatened to withhold aid if the ukrainians didnt do it. The facts are quite plain. If this goes to the senate, if he is impeached in the house and it goes to the senate, would you vote to remove him from office . Well, if the facts continue to align the way they have so far, i dont think we would have a choice but to vote to remove him from office. Let me ask you a president shouldnt do go ahead. Im so sorry to interrupt, but let me ask you about the conversations you might be hearing in the halls of the senate and congress. Are republicans looking at this and seeing a different set of facts than the rest of us are seeing or do they just believe those facts dont add up to an Impeachable Offense . It is different. So there are some people who have been around for a while who i think have a sense of what their constitutional obligation is. I dont know how theyll vote in the end, but theyre really worried about what President Trump has done. There are others who every single day try to change the story. I mean first the issue is the hearings are private, now trumps complaining because the hearings are public. These guys just follow him down that we need to know who the whistleblower is, got to ignore the whistleblower, now it is the corroboration. They find ways of ignoring it. It was unfortunate that he did it but not an Impeachable Offense. My goodness, this is a case where youve got a president of the United States basically extorting another foreign leader for his own political benefit. I cant think of something that would be more impeachable than that. Katie, i would also say this. You know, what is even worse about this or just as bad is you look at what the president tweeted all weekend long. If anybody else in america employed by a tv station or a law firm or a bank had tweeted that stuff, they would have faced hr on monday morning who would have said, you better start or youre going to get fired. What specifically are you talking about . Yeah, and if the response to that from the employee was, forget about it, im a stable genius or i have unmatched wisdom, you would say, okay, if you could clean out your things today that would be good. And while he was doing all of that this weekend, ron w iran w doubling the number of centrifuges theyre using to make the Nuclear Material they could use to arm a bomb. You have the chinese entering into a trade pact with other countries that represent half the gdp of the world and the u. S. Is nowhere on any of this stuff because hes spending his weekend lying to the American People on twitter. Let me ask you this. If you were elected president , youre going to be presiding over presumably a pretty divided country. I dont think our divides will be healed just after the next election. How do you convince half of the country or whatever number of the country that didnt vote for you, how do you convince people to Work Together . How do you work with republicans when it seems like the only politics, the only reward for being in Politics Today is to be tribal, is to be on the side of your party. Right. And to stop the other party at all costs . That goes for both i mean it seems it goes for all of p politics, period. Katie, you were talking about Climate Change at the top of the show. I heard you talking about it. What i was thinking about while you were talking about it is not just that we have to act urgently, which we do, but we also have to create a solution that will last for a generation. There is nothing in our current politics that will allow us to do that. In other words if you accept a world where i put my stuff in for two years, the other side rips it out, then i put my stuff in for two years, the other side rips it out, if you accept that then you need to accept an idea our democracy cant fix Climate Change because we never be able to address it two years at a time. Which is why i think the only answer, and if i am elected president , i will spend as much time in places where i will never win more than 30 of the vote as i do in places where i will