>> mrs. cooper i wanted to start with you. you spoke eloquently of the threat of russia when it illegally annexed crimea how that's a threat not only to ukraine but also a threat to europe and the united states, a national security challenge. and i sit on the house armed services committee. we know that the most important support for ukraine in terms of lethal defensive aid is in the form of javelins. would you agree with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> and which administration were those javelins made available to

ukraine? >> this administration, the trump administration. >> and not the obama administration? >> that is correct. >> both of you, have you ever spoken with the president about ukraine aid? >> no, i have not. >> you testified you had no direct knowledge of any nefarious to with hold aid to ukraine. >> correct. >> and you testified there were no strings attached to the aid, correct? that's page 184 of your deposition. >> i had no such knowledge. >> and more specifically you testified you had no knowledge of ukraine aid being held up for investigations, is that correct? >> correct. >> during the temporary hold of security assistance this was until ambassador taylor sent you the cable, you had never even heard the words burisma or biden, correct? >> well, in the context of what we're discussing, correct. >> great. you testified that on page 96. and ultimately as we know the

aid was released to ukraine, correct? >> yes, i read that. >> now, let's talk about the context broadly of this hold. you testified that it's not just ukraine, that there were in fact other countries whose security assistance was on hold. quote, the age package to lebanon was also being held in the same fashion. correct? >> correct. >> and foreign aid was held for countries of south central countries correct? >> central america. >> and sow testified when you served as ambassador to pakistan security assistance was also held for their failure to address our concerns on terrorists and other issues on the afghan-pakistan border. >> correct. >> basically let's broadly talk about the context of all of these holds on aid. when we talk about aid i always think about these are hard earned taxpayer dollars. would you agree with that? >> absolutely.

>> and isn't it correct that this administration, the trump administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to re-establish norms that guide the assistance as we provide aid overseas? >> that's correct. >> you testified that this review had been going on for quite a while and the administration did not want to take a business as usual approach to foreign assistance, a feeling that once a country has received a foreign assistance package, it's something that continues forever. and you continued. the program had to be evaluated they were actually worthy beneficiaries of our assistance, that our program made sense, that we avoid nation building strategies and that we provide assistance to countries that are lost in terms of our policy to our adversaries, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you testified you warmly welcomed this assistance review. >> correct. >> and again just to get this on record for the millions of americans viewing, security assistance was in fact released

to ukraine. i know i already asked this but this a really important point. >> correct. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mrs. cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars of the president's defense and one justification for his conduct. first pillar, no harm, no foul. the ukrainians didn't know that the hold was in place, so didn't really hurt them. second pillar, this president was a real champion of anti-corruption. he cared about corruption in ukraine. so i want to go through your new testimony today. it's your testimony now that after an employee came forward to you, you believe you had some evidence that the ukrainians first inquired about security assistance to someone in your office on july 25 of this year, is that right?

>> your testimony today is on may 23 ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to be released, is that? >> sir, the defense department certified.

>> ambassador hale, did he ever call you to ask you about an update on ukraine corruption? >> no, sir. >> mrs. cooper, did he ever call the many bosses that you've had at the department of defense? the secretaries or acting secretaries? >> i don't know, sir. >> but the truth, mrs. cooper is that under the obama administration and the european assurance initiative $175 million were provided from u.s. taxpayer dollars to the ukrainians, is that right? >> sir, i don't have that figure. the figure that we typically use is to say we provided $1.6 billion to date. but i don't have the break down in front of me.

>> and under the obama administration founded the ukrainian initiative provided to the ukrainians were armored humvies, tactical drones, night vision devices, armored vests and medical equipment, is that correct? >> those all sound like pieces of equipment that were provided in the obama administration to my recollection. >> you'd agree that's a lot more than blankets, right? >> yes, sir. >> ambassador hale, the aid that was withheld to lebanon and pakistan those were for legitimate foreign policy objectives, is that right? >> i would say that's true. the assistance to pakistan, i've not heard an explanation for the

current hold on the lebanese program. >> and you'd agree that withholding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a legitimate foreign policy objective, is that right? >> correct. >> so i guess we can agree that even bernie madof made charitable contributions but it doesn't make him a good guy. mrs. cooper, your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders from the president. because you came forward and testified, we learn this new information which destroys a central defense that the republicans have put forward. because ambassador taylor came forward, one of his employees learned this defense from the republicans that all we had was hearsay evidence. and mr. holmes said actually i heard the president of the united states tell ambassador sondland where are we with the investigations. your courage has aided this

investigation despite the president's continued obstruction. and i yield back. >> mr. hurd. >> thank you, chairman. >> ambassador hale, you're in essence the number three guy at the state department, is that correct? >> correct. >> you represent roughly 70,000 folks. >> i wouldn't say represented them, i'm part of them. one of them, yes. >> are you part of a fantastic work force that i've been proud to serve alongside. we shared time together in pakistan. and so thank them. i know they oftentimes don't get the pats on the back or the accolades for what they do for our national security, but there's some of us that do recognize that and appreciate that. did anybody raise issues to you, ambassador hale, about investigations, the bidens or u

burisma? >> no, sir. >> thank you. mrs. cooper, you have a great staff. i don't think my staff would have read my 115-page deposition and give me feedback, so i give them gold stars. you said in your deposition and you just confirmed with my colleague from california that you certified on 23 may that the ukraine aid for the review of the -- their defense industry and the department of defense was past the corruption test, is that correct? >> sir, i think the wording was more along the lines of progress has been made or sufficient progress has been made. it didn't reference any kind of an anti-corruption test per se. >> did this change or was there a reevaluation with a new president coming in? because president zelensky was

inaugurated into office two days before that date. did that have an impact on how he was going to continue some of those pieces? was that taken into account in this review? >> not prior to may 23rd, no, sir. >> so the review was basically done on the previous -- the efforts done by the previous poroshenko administration? >> yes, sir. although it's important to note that the review related most specifically to the ministry of defense. >> sure. sure. but there were ultimately changes under the zelensky regime, is that correct? >> yes, sir. there's a new ministry of defense. >> can you explain the difference between fmf and usai funding and also how ukrainians get lethal aid? >> can you repeat the last part of that -- >> how the ukrainians actually

get lethal aid because is lethal aid covered under these two buckets? >> there are two separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the ukrainian armed forces. the first is the foreign military finance system, which is a state department authority, and countries around the world have this authority. that authority is used for some of the training and equipment. there's also the ukraine security assistance initiative. that's a dod authority. unlike the state authority, the dod authority is only a one-year authority. and then third there's opportunity for defense sales. and that is something that we're working with the ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase u.s. equipment. but the javelins specifically was provided under fmf initially. and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of

javelins. >> and there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? >> not to my understanding, no. >> can i ask you a non-impeachment inquiry question, mrs. cooper? >> a non what? >> a non-impeachment inquiry question? >> sir, my time is yours. >> what can we do to help the ukrainians defend against russian electronic warfare? what more can we be doing to help defend? >> what i can say in an open hearing is there actually is some electronic warfare detection equipment that is included in the usai package. so there's a piece of capability we're already working to provide them. i think this specific topic, though, is more suitable for a closed door session. >> that's a good copy. thank you both for your service to our country. and chairman, i yield back.

>> thank you, chairman. and thank you all for your testimony today. i want us to make an important distinction here because a few of my colleagues have rattled off countries where we've actually held up aid. there is a big distinction between holding up aid for a legitimate policy reason, foreign policy reason and holding up aid as part of a shakedown. because it's in the service of a president who asks for a political favor of a country to go investigate a political rival. i think that's important for us to note. and i want to ask you, mrs. cooper, you said that the money was clear to go by the dod on may 23rd. is that right? >> that's correct. >> and it didn't get released until september 11? >> yes. i should just clarify the second half of the ukraine security assistance initiative was notified to congress on i believe it was may 23rd. and then there was a waiting period for congressional approval.

and then after that point. so in kind of mid-june roughly it was available for it. >> so perhaps 90 days or so, 95 days, something like that. >> yes, i don't have it in front of me but that sounds about right. >> you both testified the hold on security assistance was not in the national security interests of the united states and the hold might embolden russia. this was not the only issue with the hold, right? we understand that people within the united states government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the empoundment control act. this is because the money had been authorized by congress and signed into law by president trump. mrs. cooper, the july meetings were there any discussions whether the hold could be implemented in a legal fashion? >> so in the july 26th meeting my leadership raised the question of how the president's guidance could be implemented

and proffered that perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this but that more research would need to be done. so then after that discussion we had a lower level discussion at my level on the 31st of july. >> let me ask you about that july 31st meeting. based on your conversations with colleagues at the dod at the agency meeting, did you share your understanding of the legal mechanisms that were available at that time? >> yes, sir. >> and what were they? >> i expressed it was my understanding that there were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the ukraine security assistance initiative. and the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. the second is a reprogramming action that the department of defense would do. >> and both of those would

require congressional notice? there would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify congress. as far as you know was there any notice ever sent out to congress? >> sir, i did express that i believed it would require a notice to congress and that there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. >> and as far as you know there was never any official rescission or reprogramming of that money? >> no, sir, not to my knowledge. >> instead what happened was omb devised an alternative solution involving creative footnotes to implement the hold. and there came a time in august when the department of defense no longer supported these unusual footnotes because of concerns there might not be sufficient time for dod to obligate the funds before the fiscal year in violation of the empoundment control act. despite dods concerns in august and omb's footnotes, the hold nevertheless continued through september 11th even after now as

an aside -- this is even after the whistle-blower had come forward. is that right? >> it is correct that the hold was released on september 11th, yes. >> well, i know i and many of us here share dods concerns about the legality of the hold. and i want to thank you for voicing dods concerns to the white house in pursuing the national security interests of the united states. i yield back. >> mr. radcliffe. >> chairman. mrs. cooper, based on the new e-mails you mentioned in your opening and subsequent declaration by some of my democratic colleagues that those e-mails were evidence that the ukrainians were aware of a military hold on july 25th, there's now reporting out there saying that pentagon official reveals ukrainians asked about stalled security aid. it's being widely reported that

ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. that's not what i heard from you. is that correct? >> sir, my exact words were that one e-mail said that the ukrainian embassy and the house foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. >> assistance. not hold. >> and then the second e-mail was the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the ukrainian embassy. those were the exact words. >> and what does the security assistance and fmf in these e-mails mean? >> i don't want to speculate on what it means. >> right. they don't necessarily mean hold, correct? >> not necessarily. >> and isn't it true that around the same time omb put a hold on 15 state department and usaid

accounts including fmf? >> i don't know that specific detail. >> but you can't say one way or another whether the inquires in these e-mails were about the hold. is that fair? >> i cannot say for certain. >> and you can't say one way or the other whether the ukrainians knew about the hold before august 28, 2019, when it was reported in politico, correct? >> sir, i can just tell you that it's -- the recollection of my staff that they likely knew y lie

. >> i believe i saw that media reporting, yes. >> i yield back. >> mr. heck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you both for being here this evening. ambassador hale, last week the country watched as president trump attacked and intimidated your colleague. he attempted to intimidate your colleague, ambassador yovanovitch who's of course a witness to this proceeding. and subsequently secretary pompeo declined to condemn that attack. bluntly put i think secretary

pompeo's silence is nothing less than an betrayal of the men and women who he swore an oath to lead. and it's a betrayal that has long-term consequences to attracting and retaining work f force to their morale, effectiveness and overall strength. so ambassador hale, i want to give you an opportunity to now do what secretary pompeo did not do either in march of 2019 when the vicious smear campaign got of got kicked into high gear and you, sir, rightfully pressed for a strong statement in support of her. or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. i'm offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and the millions of americans

hopefully who are watching that marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot and that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated and unsubstantiated smear attack against her. ambassador hale, i'm giving you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership. i'm giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who serve in dangerous foreign posts throughout the globe that what happened to marie yovanovitch was wrong. ambassador hale, the floor is yours. >> thank you, congressman. excuse me, i endorsed entirely your description of ambassador yovanovitch. i only met her when i took this job. but immediately i understood that we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work

at a very critical embassy in kiev. and during my visits to kiev i was very impressed by what she was doing there to the extent i asked her if she'd be willing to stay, if that was a possibility because we had a gap coming up. i support and believe in the institution and the people of the state department. i am one of them. i have been for 35 years. all of us are committed to america's national security, and we are the best group of diplomats anywhere in the world. and that support extends to all state officers who have testified before this committee. if i may i'd like to read a letter that the under-secretary for management wrote on november 18 to the ranking member on the senate relations committee in response to a communication from him. a number of department employees have testified before the house of representatives during its inquiry regarding ukraine. no employee has faced any adverse action by the department for testimony before congress on this matter. the department will not discipline any department employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. the department has also

proactively established a program to provide financial assistance with respect to private counsel and legal fees incurred by department employees. there's additional information, but that's the essence of the message. >> ambassador hale, then therefore are you saying marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot? >> i endorse what you say exactly. >> and that she served with grace and dignity in the face of this smear campaign. >> yes, she did. >> and that what happened to her was wrong? >> i believe she would have been able to stay in post and continue to do the outstanding work -- >> and what happened to her was wrong? >> that's right. >> thank you, sir. thank you for clarifying the record. because i wasn't sure where it was that she could go to set the record straight or where she could go to get her good name and reputation back if it wasn't you, sir. indeed i want to encourage you in the strongest terms possible. stand your ground. america's security and strength and prosperity is medicated in

no small part on the professionalism of our foreign services corp. and they need to know that you as the highest ranking professional diplomat in the entire state department have their backs, sir. thank you for having ambassador yovanovitch's back this evening. and with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr ms. cooper, why did the office of management and budget put a hold on the funds? >> sir, the only information that i received was from the office of management and budget that they were operating at the direction of the president thet

>> but there was -- you know, there was a small change in ukraine in the spring of 2019, wasn't there? >> yes, sir. >> yeah, and can you elaborate on what that change was? >> the government of -- well, president zelensky was elected to government. >> yeah, you've got a brand new guy coming in. in fact, he had just been, i believe, sworn in the day you approved the dollars. was it may 23rd -- i think he

was sworn in i guess a couple of days before. but there was a sort of change in circumstances that seemed to me to warrant at least a second look. and that's exactly what played out for a short time. less than two months, 55 days the -- our government evaluated the new situation. pretty radical change. you've got a new government. in fact, the previous one we've heard all kinds of things from the democrats about the prosecutor general and mr. ludseko and how bad he was. takes them a while -- it's not until september, september 5th that they get rid of this prosecutor. and just a few days later the aid actually gets released. but the democrats have got all

kinds of other things they want to talk about. but the way this played out seems to me as logical as you can do it. and particular when you put it in the broader framework where this president is on concern about foreign aid, his deep-rooted concern in the corruption issue in ukraine, the experience he had with high ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him and supporting secretary clinton in the 2016 election. put all that together and it sort of i think shows why it played out the way it did. with that i yield back. >> mr. welch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. under-secretary hill, i want to go back to your support and affirmation of ambassador yovanovitch. what i understand -- and by the way, thank you for that. our military leaves nobody -- no soldier on the battlefield.

and i think those who are in leadership positions in the state department and our intelligence community have that bond of loyalty to each other. and it's very reassuring that you represent that. you first as i understand it got information about her situation in march. by early march secretary pompeo had mentioned that some time in the fall had received a letter by a former member of congress about complaints of the ambassador, correct? and that member of congress was? >> congressman sessions. >> and did you see any basis to the claims of disloyalty? >> no, i did not nor the secretary of state. >> you visited kiev and you discussed in fact extending ambassador yovanovitch's term to remain at her post, right. >> it was a personal idea of mine, yes. >> obviously an indication you valued her continued service

there. and you also stated to the ukrainian press that ambassador yovanovitch represents the president of the united states here and ukraine and america stands behind her statements here trying to give her public support, correct? >> correct. >> and weeks later the president and mr. giuliani unleashed what can only be characterized as an ugly smear campaign to oust her. what was your reaction to the news articles in late march in which a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor attacked the ambassador? >> well, we were concerned. we put out a statement that some of these allegations are an outright fabrication as they related to the do not prosecute list and we discussed what we could do to deal with this matter. >> and the problems continued for ambassador yovanovitch. and as i understand it she e-mailed you on march 24th and indicated that, quote, the tempo of social media and other criticisms were such she felt she could no longer function

unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the state department. is that correct? >> correct. >> and this message -- and secretary pompeo was aware of her situation. is that correct? >> yes, i briefed him the next day. >> and he's the ultimate authority who could issue that strong statement of support, correct? >> correct. >> but he never, ever did issue a statement, right? >> we did not issue a statement at that time. >> but, in fact, as you testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long serving and highly respected ambassador, you made two phone calls to rudy giuliani, is that right? >> that's correct. i've seen a record that he made those phone calls. >> one on march 28th and again on march 29. >> and saw the record of that,

yes. >> right. so we don't know what he said to rudy giuliani, but we have a pretty good idea what rudy giuliani said to him, get rid of you vyovanovitch. she was gone and the statement never came. >> correct. >> and when she was recalled secretary pompeo would not meet with her. >> i was out of the country at the time. i can't comment on that. >> and the next in line didn't meet with her. >> i didn't know this. >> it came to you to give her the news. >> the deputy secretary i believe held the meeting. i was on foreign travel at the time. >> it'd be interesting if we could have secretary pompeo be here to tell us what his conversations were with rudy giuliani, the person who was fomenting the discontent about an ambassador for who was fighting corruption. i want to thank you and i want to thank ms. cooper for your service.

>> mr. maloney. >> hello, ms. cooper, secretary hale. thank you for working late on a wednesday. i think the last time we attempted to hear your testimony the republicans were good enough to bring pizza down to the scif. but kidding aside i know we detained you for about five hours that day. so on behalf of the committee thank you for yourfo forebearan. quick question for you and i think just one question for you, secretary hale. ms. cooper, was dod able to put all the security assistance funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year? >> no, sir. >> and how much were they not able to obligate -- what was left unobligated? >> i believe the figure was $35 million. we were able to actually obligate 88% total. >> and i think you mentioned you were able because of legislation

the congress passed continuing resolution to do that. is that right? >> so the remainder we're in the process of obligating right now -- >> excuse me, the remainder. >> but for literally an act of congress you couldn't have spent all the money? >> if we did not receive the provision in the continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88% but not the full amount. >> right, which of course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriated? >> sir, i'm not a lawyer but that is my understanding. >> sure. thank you. secretary hale, where were you born? >> an arbor, michigan. >> and your family's from ireland? >> no, sir. >> i'm sorry. strike it.

another question. with respect to secretary yovanovitch, you served as ambassador to i believe three countries? >> correct. >> jordan lebanon and pakistan. and while you were ambassador to those three countries did anyone ever ask you to issue a support praising personally the president of the united states? >> no. >> how would you have viewed such a request? >> it would depend on the situation, sir. >> say you went to someone and you were having a problem with your job and you said how can i do better and they said you should publish something personally praising the president, flattering to him. would that strike you as unusual? >> yes. >> someone told you to go big or go home, would that change your mind? >> i don't quite understand the -- >> well, that's what ambassador yovanovitch was treated to when she went to ambassador sondland seeking advice. and she declined to do so.

i believe she said it would strike her as too political. is that consistent with the approach you might take? >> i thought that sounds sensible, yes. >> thank you. i yield the remainder of my time back to the chairman. thank you both for being here. >> ms. demings. >> ambassador hale, ms. cooper, thank you both for being with us. just a quick question before i get into some questions about ambassador sondland who we heard from today. i want to ask both of you if president trump withheld critical military aid from ukraine because high ranking officials supported the president's political opponent, would you consider that an official acceptable appropriate action by the president of the united states? ambassador hale?

>> it's not what i would advise. >> ms. cooper? >> no, that does not sound appropriate. >> ambassador hale, you testified ambassador sondland was involved himself in matters and i quote, went beyond the normal writ of an ambassador to the european union, unquote. as you understood it who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine? >> i have no first-hand knowledge of that. i received a read out from a meeting that the president of the united states had with the delegation on may 23rd in which the briefing i received anyway indicated that the president wanted the members of that delegation which included ambassador sondland to carry forth the policies that were discussed in the course of that meeting. >> so that occurred in a meeting on oval office may 23rd.

>> a written read out, yes. >> you testified and i quote, it was clear that the members of that inaugural delegation were empowered by the president, is what you testified. you also said and i quote, as a practical matter it would be ambassador volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with taylor who would be the ones really doing the continual effort here. did you understand that ambassador sondland had direct access to the president? >> i in the few occasions in which i had conversations with ambassador sondland, he often would let me know he was in direct contact with the president. that's all i knew. >> so you received that information directly from ambassador sondland that he had direct contact with the president? >> in previous occasions, yes. not related to this particular matter. >> is there anything about ambassador sondland's role that struck you as problematic? >> based on what i knew at the

time i was satisfied that this delegation was what the president wanted to have -- you know, to continue to pursue these policies. and i saw the ambassador had been a foreign service officer and ambassador of distinction and steeped in ukrainian affairs was part of that group, so i had no concerns. >> so what you knew at the time you were okay with his role. but did your opinion change about the appropriateness of his role? >> as i testified i was not aware of these various activities related to negotiations over investigations, preconditions related to that. i just wasn't aware of it, so i had no reason to be making any kind of judgment one way or the other. >> have you reviewed the text messages between ambassador sondland and volker? >> i've seen some that were reported in the media. >> were you surprised by anything in those messages that

you heard reported or personally witnessed or observed? >> i was surprised by what i saw in those reports in the media. >> i want to ensure i understand your testimony, ambassador hale. you believed ambassador sondland was empowered by the president according to what you found out from the may 23rd meeting to work on ukraine policy, and you said, quote, none of that really struck you as problematic because of the time differences there, what you knew. is that correct? >> based on what i knew, yes. >> okay. you are the under-secretary for political affairs. you testified that in that capacity you are responsible for the management of the united states bilateral relations with and i quote, every country in the world that we recognize for the management 06 our policies towards those countries as well as our relationship or policies as they relate to multilateral organizations. does that include u.s. policy and relations with ukraine?

>> it does. but when we have a special envoy who reports directly to the secretary related to a country or an issue, that special envoy will take the day to day responsibilities. >> what about u.s. policy and relations with the european union? >> yes, i am. >> but you were not aware fully of ambassador sondland's activities on behalf of president trump? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. cristmoorthi. >> good evening, thank you for being here. you and your colleagues testified you gathered documents at the state department with understanding they would be provided to congress, right? >> i was not involved in the decision making or i have no responsibilities related to gathering documents.

i understood it was under way, and i certainly received the documents that i described earlier. >> i see. in terms of the materials that were collected, do they include electronic files and e-mails, for instance? >> i can only speak to the documents that were made available to me and did include e-mails. >> and paper documents -- >> and paper documents. >> would tape recordings potentially be among the files that were gathered? >> i really couldn't speculate on that. >> but you can't rule out that possibility? >> i don't know of tape recordings but i can't really comment on that. >> and are you familiar with from whom the documents had been collected, like the individual cu custodians? >> i don't know that, sir. >> you're aware that despite a duly congressional subpoena has been served on the state department we have yet to receive a single document,

correct? >> i understand that, yes. >> ms. cooper, in the interagency process, did anyone in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be a hold on military assistance to ukraine? >> i can only speak to the three meetings that i attended, the pcc, dsg and then pcc. and i have no recollection of the issue of allied burden sharing coming up at that point. i did provide information in my deposition about what i thought was a completely separate query that i received in mid-june from the secretary of defense's front office. and one of the questions there just asked a question about the degree to which allies were contributing to ayoocrane security assistance, just to be very clear.

>> okay, but after the hold was put in place on july 18th, you haven't heard any concerns about a lack of allied funding as a reason for why the hold should be in place? >> in those meetings that i attended, i did not hear that or i do not recall hearing that as a reason. the only reason that i heard was the president's views on corruption. no further information. >> same question to you, under-secretary hale. >> can you repeat the question, sir? >> i assume you didn't hear about the lack of allied funding as a reason for the hold being put in place after july 18th? >> no, i never heard a reason for the hold. >> i assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that omb put in place at the direction of the president, right? >> that's correct. >> and i assume one of my colleagues brought up the idea that the hold was put in place to assess whether or not president zelensky was legit. i assume that was not a reason

that was offered either. >> no, sir. i never heard that as a reason. >> i heard no reason. >> under-secretary hale, what is the importance of a world leader having a meeting at the white house? >> well, really it's case by case. but particularly for a new leader it's an extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our relationship, for building up that relationship at a personal level, leadership level to demonstrate common goals. >> what about in the case of president zelensky? how important was it for him to have a meeting at the white house with president trump? >> well, i never talked to president zelensky about that myself. i met him before he became president. i met with president poroshenko and the two leading candidates. >> but as an expert on these matters, is it fair to say that a new world leader such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with president trump is extremely

important for his image that he projects especially toward folks like russia? >> well, oval office meetings is incredibly valuable for any foreign leader, let me state that principle. and for a ukrainian president it is indeed what you just said to demonstrate that the bond between the united states is strong and we're going to continue to work together on our policy goals including countering russian intimidate of ukraine. >> thank you so muff. i yield back. >> that concludes the member questioning. mr. nunes', do you have any concluding remarks? >> i thank the gentlemen. what have we learned from democrat's impeachment inquiry? they promised a fair hearing. what have they delivered? the impeachment version of three card, a notorious short

con trick where the mark, in this case president trump and the american public, stands no chance of winning. democrats promised the whistle-blower's testimony. in fact, they told us that we need to speak with the whistle-blower. and then we learned that the whistle-blower coordinated with the democratic staff before alerting the intelligence community's inspector general. to hide their con the democrats pound the table and gaslight the country telling us that the whistle-blower's entitled to an imaginary statutory right of anonymity. they accuse of trying to out the whistle-blower knowing that they're the only ones who know who he is. they say that if the facts are against you, argue the law. if the law is against you, argue the facts. and if both are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. it seems that law school these days is teaching their students a fourth tactic. if the facts and the law are against you, simply rig the game

and hope your audience is too stupid to catch your duplicity. this is not an impeachment inquiry. it's an impeachment inkwu kwigz. in the old days the inquisitor was free to act on his own and bring suit against any person who was vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor. and the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. incredibly our maybe not so much given the democrats' track record, an inquisition victim had more rights than the democrats are giving the president. after all, inquisition victims had the rights to know their accuser's name. for those of you at home, it's time to change the channel, turn down the volume or hide the kids. put them to bed. and i yield to mr. schiff for story time hour. >> i thank the gentleman as

always for his remarks. i want to -- i'll be brief this evening. it's been a long day, and i said most of what i wanted to say earlier in the day. but i did want to end this evening and first of all thank you both for your testimony and your long service to the country. we're grateful that you answered the lawful process of a congressional subpoena. i wanted to share a few reflections on two words that have come up a lot in the course of these hearings. and those words are corruption and anti-corruption. we are supposed to believe, i imagine, listening to my colleagues that donald trump is a great anti-corruption fighter. that his only concern about ukraine is that it would fight corruption. but let's look at that argument. let's look at the president's

words and let's look at his deeds. ambassador yovanovitch was an anti-corruption champion. no one has contradicted that that has come forward to testify here. she was a champion. and on the day she is at a meeting acknowledging in ukraine another anti-corruption champion, a woman who had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months, she is called back to washington because of a vicious smear campaign by the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani, among others. she's recalled that is not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and one of the people responsible for this smear campaign in addition to mr. giuliani, and it is a long and

sordid list of those who were involved, is man named ludsenko, smoon who has a poor reputation as self-serving and corrupt. and what do we see about mr. le ludsenko and his predecessor, he praises them. he says they were treated very unfairly. that's not anti-corruption. that's corruption. and when ambassador sondland testified today that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo and everybody knew it conditioning a white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted to show its friend and foe alike it had the support of

the president of the united states -- when that was conditioned, that official act was conditioned on the receipt of things of value to the president, political investigations, that was not anti-corruption. that was corruption. and when ambassador sondland testified today that he could put two and two together and so can we, that there was also a quid pro quo on the military aid, that that aid was not going to be released unless they did a public statement, ukraine did a public statement of these political investigations, the president wanted, that's not anti-corruption, that is corruption. and let's look at the president's words on that phone call, that infamous phone call on july 25th. does he ask president zelensky, how's that reform coming in the rata, what are you doing to root out corruption? what about that new

anti-corruption -- of course not. of course not. are we willing to believe that was his priority? no. what does he ask? i want you to do us a favor. investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the server's somewhere in ukraine. and more ominously investigate the bidens. that's not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and the next day when he's on the phone to ambassador sondland in that outdoor restaurant in kiev, what does he want to know about? does he want to know how zelensky is going to fight corruption? of course not. the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation he wants into the bidens. that's not anti-corruption. that is corruption. every now and then there's a conversation that really says all you need to know.

and sometimes it doesn't seem all that significant, but i'll tell you this one really struck me. and it was a conversation that ambassador volker related in his testimony. and it was a conversation just this past september when he's talking to andriy yermak and advising him as indeed he should. you may not want to go through an investigation or prosecution of former president poroshenko. engaging in political investigations is really not a good idea. and you know what yermak says? oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons? well, there's a word for that too and it's not corruption or anti-corruption. it's called hypocrisy.

and this is the problem here. we do have an anti-corruption policy around the world. and the great men and women in your department, under-secretary hale and in your department ms. cooper, they carry that message around the world, that the united states is devoted to the rule of law. but when they see a president of the united states who is not devoted to the rule of law, who is not devoted to anti-corruption but instead demonstrates in word indeed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for anymore? that concludes this evening's hearing. i will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves. members should remain. we have a business matter to take up.

i have the ranking members request that i copker as chair and the committee issue subpoenas -- >> the television lights came up at 9:00 a.m. this morning, and they are going down 11 hours later. time often between for breaks. you heard chairman schiff end the day with his second emotional summation of the day. after the first break his rejoinder about the president was he got caught. and tonight his rejoinder was that's not anti-corruption, that'scr corruption.

and with that good evening brian williams here from our nbc headquarters in new york. day 1,035 of his trump administration, day four of these impeachment hearings. a day that will be remembered for its blowtorch testimony early from eu ambassador gordon sondland, an insider and clearly the most important witness thus far. sondland confirmed the pressure campaign on ukraine. he said it was well-known on the under and confirmed the plot to get information on the bidens. sondland today refusing to go quietly. refusing to go down alone. instead the first witness with a direct line of communication with the president gave testimony under oath that is a setback for this white house and instead matches the democrats' narrative. >> we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. the suggestion that we were

engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. as i testified previously, mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. we worked with mr. giuliani because the president directed us to do so. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations. again, everyone's in the loop. i know that members of this committee frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes.

>> now, it bears noting that even before sondland had finished his testimony today the president used a time-honored technique of his and started distancing himself from his own political appointee, a man who gave his inauguration effort $1 million, gordon sondland. saying he, quote, hardly knows the gentleman. it's a talking point the president first used about a week ago. and sondland was just the first half of this marathon day. just this evening we heard testimony from senior pentagon official laura cooper, and the number three official at state, david hale. in something of a surprise ms. cooper, the senior pentagon official, made some news. apparently after the transcript of her closed door deposition was released to the public, ms. cooper's own staff came to her to flag new information she didn't previously know. >> as early as july 25th of the

same day president trump spoke with president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor, the same day that president zelensky thanked the united states for its military support and signaled it was ready to purchase more javelins. on that date you got more inqueries, your staff got nor amquiries from someone at the ukrainian embassy who was concerned about the status of the military assistance. is that correct? >> sir, that's correct. i would say specifically the ukrainian embassy staff asked what is going on with ukrainian security assistance. >> and did that connote to you that something in fact was going on with it? >> yes, sir. >> you are now, ms. cooper, the third witness for our committee who's testified that the ukrainians found out about the problem or hold on the security assistance prior it it becoming public. you're the first to indicate

that may go back as early as the date of the president's call with president zelensky. >> more on that moment in a moment. it's also not the first time that new information has come to light since these hearings have been under way. now, the afternoon session of testimony started late and just wrapped up this evening as you know. and it was only the first event of our day as we are preparing for tonight's democratic presidential debate moderated by our colleagues andrea mitchell, rachel maddow, kristen welker, and ashley parker, pulitzer prizewinning author for "the washington post." and with the testimony in washington still fresh, yes, we are going to soon turn our attention to atlanta, georgia. ten democratic presidential contenders are getting ready to walk out on that stage at tyler perry studios in atlanta. and again, in less than two hours the debate will get under way capping off what has been a riveting day. we want to bring the conversation back to our studio

in new york, bring the conversation back to what it is we have just witnessed. let's bring in former u.s. attorney, senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, nbc chief legal correspondent ari melber, and pulitzer prizewinning columnist eugene robinson. again, a long day's journey into tonight. chuck rosenberg, let's start at the end and work our way back. that lest revelation, an e-mail comes into her staff. the date should stick in peoples minds by now. this proves the ukrainians were aware of what? >> well, it shows that the ukrainians knew or at least suspected, brian, that there been been a hold put on the security assistance they so desperately needed. one of the interesting things from today, we learned again in this case from david hale, the third ranking person at the state department, how important

security assistance was for ukraine. they were invaded in 2014 by russia. 14,000 ukrainians have died since then in that conflict. and the president of the united states, according to mr. sondland who testified earlier, is conditioning receipt of security assistance on the ukrainia ukrainians making a political announcement to benefit the president. >> ari melber, as a practical political matter where it comes to messaging on the part of the democrats, you asked this evening on the air why this wasn't being billed as the plot against the bidens instead. >> exactly. because what we see here is people who work for donald trump now confirming, they say, that this was a tit for tat, a quid pro quo, a extortion bribe, whatever you want to call it to go after biden and it was all about the bidens.

and then you had this debate a little in the hearing about which ukrainian company reflected that but it was all about the bidens. we're going to see that on the debate stage tonight. in the morning we heard donald trump's own appointee who still works for him say, yes, we tried to use money to extort ukraine to help us go after biden. and in the afternoon we saw other officials including at the pentagon confirm, yes, the ukrainians knew the money was on the line. >> while i have you on the subject of sondland, which is a gentleman who's still going to occupy a lot of our time here tonight, all we know is he mentioned flying back to brussels. he was spotted indeed at dulles airport this afternoon having made his flight presumably. and presumably he's enjoying dinner over the north atlanta tonight. he'll still be an employee when he lands. talk about the impact of his words and how shocking it was

this morning he was going in? >> this was actually an incredible day. gordon sondland is the trump donor, hand picked by donald trump. and unlike many other people of the administration, he has one-to-one contact with trump. we heard this question posed in the hearings up until today, did you talk to the president about it, did you hear the president state it? this is person who repeatedly said today, yes. i talked to the president, i did it on the president's orders and he says it was a quid pro quo bribery campaign to get ukraine to hurt the bidens, go after them. so to have gordon sondland be a trump person, talk about never-trump, up until today, brian, he was always trump. and he still as of tonight is employed by trump. >> eugene, we were on the air in this very studio last night and he had a lot of explaining to do today. and there's been a lot of robust discussion whether he'd take the fifth. he did the opposite of that.

>> he did absolutely the opposite. he did, you know, i'm ready for my close up. he was -- he came with that big sort of smile on his face. he was ready to tell his story. he believes in his story, and he believes -- he emphasized a couple of points. this was the official policy of the president of the united states he was enacting. it wasn't some sort of rogue campaign. everybody was in on it, everybody knew what was going on. despite what they might tell you, everybody was in the loop. the other thing that really struck me that he said was that it didn't actually matter if the ukrainians actually investigated. it was that they announced an investigation. that was the whole point was to get the announcement of the investigation. and the sondland testimony was so full and so -- you know, it was long, but it had so much in

it that we really should not overlook the laura cooper testimony this evening. because that point about when the ukrainians knew that the aid wasn't coming. now, if you think about it for five minutes, how would they not know, right? how would you not know that $400 million in military aid that you desperately need had not arrived on time? that it had been approved, and usually it shows up. >> yeah. >> exactly you look in your bank account on payday and if your salary isn't there, you notice. and if you're ukraine, absolutely you notice. we got confirmation of what you could assume, yes, they noticed. they knew the money wasn't there and knew something was up. >> chuck rosenberg, eugene mentioned sondland's confident air and smile. sean patrick later called it a

smirk in his view. and that's also to say sondland angered -- found a way to anger members of both parties today. the republicans made some head way in their redirect, and i think that's what the congressman from new york angry. >> ambassador sondland was the strongest when he read his opening statement. over the course of the day it seemed like he wore down a bit. >> he migrated. >> he migrated, but that's not the first time this happened to that particular gentleman. remember this was essentially as the congressman pointed out, the third iteration of his statement. each time it's gotten a bit sharper, his recall has gotten a bit better. when that happens as a former federal prosecutor, your antenna immediately go up. as you're just remembering stuff innocently as we sometimes do, or is he coloring or shading his testimony in some way particularly if he's had access to what other people have said? so there was stuff that was quite damning of the president early on. and again as we discussed, it

softened a bit as the day went on. >> and brian, today gordon sondland as an appointee confirmed publicly under oath that there was quid pro quo bribery, and he hasn't been removed from office. just think about that. >> the night is still young. >> but that's an endorsement the white house is currently leaving on the table. >> absolutely. 8:11 p.m. eastern time for those just joining us. we are talking about this momentous day of testimony, obviously. also obviously, in less than an hour we're going to go live to the tyler perry studios in atlanta for tonight's democratic debate. as usual for us in the spin room it wouldn't be the same without it, chris matthews at his post in atlanta. chris, i don't remember being this preoccupied with a similarly political matter on the day of a debate going into a

debate night. >> we'll see how it works. i think certainly our viewers and yours as well have been fascinated by the prosecution of this impeachment effort, fascinated by it. they don't really want to change topics, really. we'll see tonight in a weird way the impeachment audience will be brought right into the debate chamber tonight. so in a way they're going to meet each other. i've got to tell you, i was loving what ari melber said a moment ago about conversions. if i were the president sitting up in the white house tonight with melania or anybody else in the circle, i'd be aware of all these conversions with people, ambassador sondland still on the payroll testifying basically the president committed the crime today, saying it was a quid pro quo. you know, and i think the circle he described today and the chairman described, it's such a wide circle of people involved in this escapade. the chief of staff, the

secretary of state, of course the acting director of office of management and budget, all the members of the state department all involved in this quid pro quo. and i think where the democrats have an advantage is the medium we're on right now. because these opening statements are so well written. they're so well written for television. they have the key moment in them where he said it was basically a quid pro quo and it was all directed by the president. all this is going to be video evidence going into the judiciary committee and then for the house floor and then for the senate trial. all this video supporting the charge that would be the basis of the first article of impeachment which is abuse of power. and all the republicans can do is do scatter shots. they can do some skirmishing, but they can't get rid of those videos of what the democrats are able to get in the first hour or

so of each hour of testimony. >> chris, don't move. we're going to fit in our first break. by way of thanking our cocounsel, our two lawyers who have been with us for our coverage all day long. i'm watching the clock, too. we're coming up on 12 hours. we'll be right back. our coverage of the post-hearing coverage and the pre-debate coverage, all of it comes right back. all of it comes right back it's how we bring real hope to our cancer patients- like viola. when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her team at ctca created a personalized care plan that treated her cancer and strengthened her spirit. so viola could focus on her future. their future. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. cancer treatment centers of america. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity--

--and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ with tender crisp technology. the best of pressure cooking and air frying are now in one pot. and only the ninja foodi has tender crisp technology, so you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. you may never need another appliance ever again. the ninja foodi pressure cooker. the pressure cooker that crisps.

we are back. and a guy that must have been mentioned 500 times during our day's impeachment hearing coverage for all the wrong reasons, if you ask him. joe biden arriving at the venue tonight in atlanta where he will be one of ten on stage greeting that familiar looking fellow on the right-hand side. looks a lot like chris matthews if you ask me. back here in our new york studios we're joined by claire

mccaskill of the state of missouri and by our own joy reid, host of "am joy." this is where you get to do your wind up and tell me what the hearings meant to you. >> i thought this was a blockbuster day. you know, there's been a little bit of media critique sort of the hearings have lacked a certain pizzazz, which is not the point. but i think a lot of people have been waiting for that moment, that john dean moment where it all comes together. now you have a primary source, mr. sondland who actually spoke to the president himself, in his own voice who came out in his opening despite him trying to walk it back a bit in the questioning, admitted to everything. it was a quid pro quo. it was a demand that the ukrainian government come across on these investigations if they wanted a meeting with the president, if they wanted aid. he told on everyone. i mean, he went full takashi 69

if you're in that generation or full john dean if you're in that generation. and i think for the trump administration and defending him, you could see them deflating because how do you defend it once he's admitted it all? >> i mean it is now a mountain of evidence. and the republicans are hanging onto this fig leaf, which is trump said it wasn't. well, trump said it wasn't on the day these investigations began. and by the way, what are you going to believe? the mountain -- your lying eyes or what i tell you, right? >> don't forget they got the money, anyway. >> right. so i do think that their defense has become so tenuous. but having talked to my friends on the hill tonight in the senate, my republican friends, i don't know a lot of progress was made. other than the ones that i

already sensed would be possibly in play, i don't get the feeling -- i think they're going to fall in right behind the talking points of the republicans in the house, and that is incredibly discouraging to me. after this testimony where it is very clear this was a scheme involving the highest levels of our government to get a foreign power to investigate a political opponent in one of our elections. with our money involved, our public money involved. it is so bad. and so then you have to ask the question, where is the line? >> do you buy the theory that john bolton would push some people over that line? >> i think john bolton could be the person who could get some people wobbly especially if he didn't hold back. i mean, there's a lot of sense of people who know john bolton well, don't count me among those folks, but a lot of people who know him well that if he comes,

he could give them both barrels. that this was a president that was behaving in a way beneath our country and the norms we should all embrace no matter who's in the oval office. >> eugene? >> it seems to me it's possible bolton would move the needle that far in terms of your senate colleagues on the republican side. it's possible he wouldn't. but i think i know what would, the poll numbers. you know, the way people in the country saw today's testimony and have seen all this testimony. i don't buy the line that people are just tuning out and it's too complicated. it's not very complicated at all. and pretty and lively and compelling today. >> are they too dug in? >> i don't know. i could make an argument that people are dug in, but i

wouldn't really have anything to base that on. you know, the numbers move very quickly in the nixon impeachment process, for example. >> and even if they don't move, the problem is going to be a lot of these people have to run for re-election, letting the president off the hook when it's pretty clear what happened. this is pretty simple. and if i'm cory gardener, i'm not feeling great. >> you're not feeling great. >> i'm glad you invoked running for re-election, though. because just tonight on twitter i saw some chatter about outgoing texas congressman and low talking will hurd, who does not seem to have changed his vote during these hearings and he's one of those texas r's who's leaving town on a fast horse. if one guy it seems to me could be peeled off by the dems, that could be the guy. >> or peter king. >> i don't know that this changes the ultimate outcome for

republicans. i think they're still going to vote to acquit him, but i think the cost of acquitting him went up today. and i think democrats are going to have a strong case to make if you go into a lindsey graham race, where it would have been a blow out. you now have a strong case democrats can make that lindsey graham knows this is wrong, that he impeached -- he voted to impeach bill clinton over a sex scandal, and he knows it's wrong. the ads write themselves for these guys. and even mcconnell, he needs to look sharp. because look what happened, a democrat can win statewide in kentucky. it is possible. and i think if you look disreputable because you don't care this president admitted to it and was proved to have done it, and you still let him off the hook, there are some suburban voters who say you're not good enough to be a senator. >> claire mccaskill does anything about this john bell edwards victory impress or was that a pro-life democrat in quotes winning in effect a local

statewide race? >> well, first of all this was a moderate, very moderate democrat. pro-gun, anti-choice. and so he won a conservative state. but when i looked at the number, and, you know, i haven't had a chance to talk to our guy steve kornacki about this. when i looked at the numbers what was very clear is there was an ecplosixplosion of participan the cities and suburbs. in missouri in 2018 when i was defeated, we had that same explosion in the blue areas of missouri. but they had the same explosion in the rural areas also. what happened in louisiana is you saw a falling off of that generated enthusiasm that trump has been able to do up until now with repeated visits to a state and repeated rallies with his base. clearly that didn't work in getting his voters out in louisiana, which is why that democratic governor squeaked to

victory because they did have that kind of ecplosion and participation in the blue areas of the state. >> eugene, back into the hearing room. anything on the calendar looking forward that's going to match the lumber, the import, the tension of today and sondland? >> not that we know of yet. i mean, before sondland's testimony we could look toward david holmes tomorrow to talk about that phone call and the day after the phone call, the phone call overheard in the kiev restaurant. and fiona hill will be striking i think and forthful witness. but i don't see anything topping sondland. but then again i had no idea sondland would go as far as he went today. so holmes or hill or somebody -- and then there is the bolton question, of course.

and there's no indication that he's going to change his mind and decide to testify. but on the other hand, it's -- i still have a hard time imagining that this is -- he thinks this is good look for him. that he's just signed a big money contract to write a book, presumably a tell-all book. and he won't come and tell the american people what he knows. i can't imagine that's the way he wants to be remembered. >> joy reid, last question in this segment. we really were having an honest discussion on our broadcast last night about the measure he was going to take the fifth this morning, and he did the opposite. >> he certainly did the opposite. and i think the thing the trump era i think has brought forward is the fundamental lack of basic courage among people who have taken on great responsibilities but don't have the guts to be

blunt, to stand up to the president or to the secretary of state when they tell them not to comply with a lawful congressional request for subpoena. the people who have shown the guts to do it have generally been the career people, ms. yovanovitch, mr. taylor, mr. kent. the people who had substance going in and trump was lucky he would allow himself anywhere near them to be blunt. when you have sondland who's not that guy, not a career guy, not an expert, he's just somebody who bought an ambassadorship, if he can step forward and take the fifth -- and let's be blunt, he doesn't want to wind up in prison. he's rich. he's like i'm not leaving my beautiful home to go to prison for trump. but it does make me ask somebody like bolton, if that guy can man up, well what's wrong with you? and i think the democrats would be wise to start calling other people. i think they should call the secretary of state.

i think they should call in bolton. let them show that they are less brave that this guy who bought an ambassadorship for a million dollars. if you're not as brave as him, what are you doing being the ambassador of the united states? i think they should start calling more people. >> on that note a woman named stacey abrams is warming up the crowd in georgia to the great thrill of the crowd in georgia. we are within a half-hour of the start time now of the democratic debate, ten of them on one stage. a break. our coverage will continue on the other side. n the other side

struggling to clean tough messes with wipes? try mr. clean magic eraser sheets. just wet, squeeze and erase icky messes in microwaves and on stovetops for an amazing clean, get the power of mr. clean magic eraser in disposable sheets. ♪ ♪

applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ tto harrison, the wine tcollection... to mateo, my favorite chair. grace, you get the beach house... just don't leave the lights on, okay? to craig, this rock.

to jamie, well, let's just say, enjoy the ride. the redwoods to the redheads. the rainbows to the proud. the almonds to walter. the beaches to the bums. and the fog to, who else, karl. i leave these things to my heirs, all 39 million of you, on one condition. that you do everything to preserve and protect them. with love, california. that music can only mean one thing. if ain't an election night

somewhere it must be debate night. and i have heard all day long from even loyal veteran democrats saying something to the effect of wait we've got to watch a debate after all this, and yes. let's just grab 30 to 60 seconds of his entrance message for his fellow democrats. >> thank you, mayor and thank you for your leadership congressman lewis, my hero. thank you to your service to america. stacey abrams, leading the fight. thank you, stacey. i can't tell you how thrilled i am to be here in georgia, atlanta the cradle of the civil rights movement where we're just south of the sixth congressional district. that used to be newt gingrich and now it's lucy mcbath country, folks. we call that trading up. when i was elected chair here in atlanta in 2017 i promised we

would compete everywhere. and we've had three novembers since that moment. and in all three novembers we've won decisive victories. and folks, let me be clear. by we i mean our entire democratic family. movements are built by the many, not the few. and i want to make sure we salute of all of our fellow committees, our state parties, our grass roots organizations, our union allies, all the critical organizations that are part of our remarkable movement. so when i say we, i mean everyone because in november 2017 virginia and new jersey proved that we could win again. and thanks to the power of african-american women, a month later we won in alabama. >> and we can almost hear loyal veteran democrats across the country listen to the chairman saying hey one of those

novembers didn't go that well for the party. we want to welcome in steve schmidt, political analyst, former republican strat and say and msnbc's chris hayes who looks a lot like the host of "all in" on this very network. welcome both of you to this conversation. we have yet to have your summation of the day we have witnessed so far heading into a ten-way democratic debate tonight. >> it's an extraordinary day in the life of the nation. what we saw today is a plot by the president of the united states in the stands up and down of the administration. it touches on the vice president, and the secretary of state involved in bribery and extortion of a foreign head of state, ukraine which is being militarily invaded on its east by the russians. and to get political dirt on the former vice president of the united states, a political opponent, it is a fathomless act

of corruption. it is an act of corruption that exceeds by orders of magnitude anything that richard nixon did during the watergate crisis. and this wasn't a never-trumper. this was a i'll give you a million dollars, donald trump, to be the ambassador to the ukraine. >> to the eu. >> excuse me, to the eu. and so they certainly have the goods on him. and i think the question that joy asked in the last -- in the last panel was if this doesn't meet the line, where is the line? what is it that you would have to do? and so donald trump very famously said he could walk down fifth avenue and he could shoot someone and there'd be no reaction. i think what we're going to see is what about walking down constitution avenue to the national archives and lighting the constitution on fire? any objections to that? because if we're to live in a country where there's no rule of law, the president can do

whatever he wants, can investigate the former vice president, what's to start him from using the irs, weaponizing the justice department, jailing a journalist, silencing critics? does anybody want to live in that type of america? what exactly is the meaning of the oath to the constitution that these senators took? and to the comments that joy made in the last panel, we live in really an unprecedented, un-parallel era of cowardice amongst people who have as you said significant important responsibilities. they are stewards of a tradition that began in 1776, consummated in 1787 through civil war, through world war, through assassination, through a great depression. the stewardship of the oldest constitutional republic in the world. they are acting like they are

members of a cultive personality. they are not acting like they are republicans fidellest through a system which has been bequeathed to us through profound sacrifice. as we watch all this unfold in the weeks ahead i think an important essential question is where is that line? what becomes intolerable in this country when it comes to the corruption of this president and his henchmen? >> chris hayes, did the hearings today -- do this political party that's going to be on display tonight, do they do it a favor? and here's what i mean, an online ad came out today for kamala harris. and the people who commented on it and said they liked it seem to like it because they say it's most important to beat this guy. the party is getting the rap deservedly so for becoming this

traveling purity test. would a day like today force a stage like this one to coalesce around a message of we've got to beat this guy? >> i'm not sure. i think the priorities are there. what i think ends up happening in these debates, first of all debates are focused on disagreement almost by definition. and people are choosing right now. what i think you'll see tonight, and this keeps happening every time you move the split screen from the trump administration and impeachment and everything to the democratic primary is that what i found exhausting almost a sort of personal visceral level is all of the bad faith and all of the special pleading. and we all have to pretend all these people are as stupid as they're pretending to be about what are the obvious sets of facts in front of them. it's so much bad faith about what is here. they could stipulate the facts and say it's bad but not impeachable. there's routes they could go that say donald trump is not an

anti-corruption crusader that's focused on one entity. so you go from this bad faith cultive personalty and big agreements to people broadly in the same coalition about big issues and the about things like the pace of change tolerable in health care versus problems in the status quo. about how much you should tax people at the top of the income bracket and whether that will be effective. those are the most basic substantive question of politics that used to feature much more centrally in the diskrs life of the nation when those were more of the fights we were having rather than this insane gaslighting vapid tornado that goes on around the whims of donald trump and the party that is so sort of loyal to him. we could have debates about that across the ideological spectrum,

but that's not what's happening right now. >> senator, do you buy that? >> well, i do think you'll see tonight more of a sense of unity by informed by what went on today. i think you will see a huge reaction not just from the audience in the hall but the audience that are watching this debate, our viewers when a candidate has an opportunity to say, listen, you know, all of us up here are united around one concept. and that is we must stop this nonsense. we must change out the guy who's in the oval office. and i think you'll see more of that than we've seen in the past. remember we've had debates, brian, where we've commented afterwards. they didn't even hardly mention trump. i don't think we'll see that tonight. i think trump will be front and center in these debates tonight. yes, there'll be differences among the candidates. we've got some real discussions

going on right now. i think it's healthy. i do think this, no matter who wins this nomination, this party will come together because of the danger donald trump rents to this country. >> and joy reid, same question. >> i think there are more fundamental differentiates than we probably would discuss had this not been the day we went through. we talked earlier about louisiana. to be blunt, the still democratic governor of louisiana owes a lot of the reason he's still governor to a huge surge in african-american voters. and i think the debate that we're having in the party right now almost forgets who the core voter in the party is which is black women. we're in a city that is a very important and primary city to african-americans. and we're yet in the party having kind of debate about who can get white midwestern voters to vote. and i think if the democratic party continues to fixate on the voters they had when lyndon johnson was president, they're going to have a hard time even though people i think all agree

across the democratic party donald trump is enathma to what the party should be, and obviously the extortion and bribery are hideous. however inside the democratic party there's still a lot of voters saying, wait a minute, all y'all care about is who iowans like and new hampshirens like and african-americans and i think black voters is a place they ought to be featured because that's the kind of place atlanta is. they're saying at this point is the party going to remember it's a diverse party? i think julian castro not being on that stage is a party. the diversity in the primary is the story of the primary. >> can i say one thing on that that i think is really important and it goes back to what we saw on the dias today. people from all different backgrounds can have different

views. there people who have all kinds of ideological beliefs, but it is the case that i think and i think the data bears this out and the research bears this out. the diverse groups come to different decisions -- when you look at that dais you see one, the democratic party just has a different thing it has to do because it is right now because of the nature of american politics a coalition that is a multiracial coalition, that is coalition across a whole bunch of different lines of division in american life. and across those lines they have to create and knit together a unified coalition. that's a hard thing to do but it is also i believe strongly essentially a break on the kind of cultish devotion that we have seen transform the republican party. i think there is a connection deeply and conceptually between the lack of diversity that has

become the republican party and the identity that has assumed itself in the trump era and its inability for anyone in it to put the brakes on. you see a lot of breaks on the democratic side and a lot of division and arguments. >> we'll fete in a break here. as we go to break, a guy who will be part of the subplot we're watching on stage tonight, and we talk about when tonight is over. that is because if you believe the numbers, he has jumped to the top in iowa and new hampshire, and there he is, mayor pete of the great state of indiana. his husband chastin, and there's the ubiquitous chris matthews, the official greeter of all candidates tonight. we're within 15 minutes of the start time. we'll be seeing all of the democrats on stage when we come back. stage when we come back

grandpa, can you tell me the story again? every family has their own unique story. give your family the chance to discover theirs this holiday season, with ancestry.

it's how we care for our cancer patients- like job. when he was diagnosed with cancer, his team at ctca created a personalized care plan to treat his cancer and side effects. so job could continue to work and stay strong for his family. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. we love you, daddy. good night. i love you guys. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with.

and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. including your interest rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right with sofi. check your rate in two minutes or less. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k. the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps.

48 after 8:00 here on the east coast. and to show our homework a little bit, we're told to expect the introduction of candidates closer to 8:53.

so we've got a minute or two here. we also want to check back in with chris matthews, official guest greeter tonight. before we do, coach k is at the board. his name was used earlier tonight. steve kornacki with how the numbers have been migrating really on the run in two of these important first states. >> brian, it's fascinating. we've got a really interesting dynamic emerging on the democratic side we haven't seen in a long time on the democratic primary. this is the national average right now. joe biden, by the way, a month ago we were talking about warren closing in on biden on the time of that last month since that last debate warrens numbers have slid back a little, sanders, buttigieg back at 8% nationally. that's the national picture. but the first state to vote completely different. in iowa right now withoutjudge triple his national support in iowa. 23% in iowa, ahead of the former vice president. ahead of warren.

a month ago we were talking about warren maybe move ughead in iowa, and maybe it's pete buttigieg. we haven't seen that kind of disconnect between where the leader of iowa is and where that person polls nationally in decades in a democratic race. obviously a question of if that can hold up for buttigieg. is he peaking too soon. the question who ultimately wins, iowa, though the momentum look how important that is because if you go to the next state in new hampshire, look at that jumble there. all those candidates in double digits right now. you know the impact in terms of money, media attention. can someone win iowa and then roll it into new hampshire? and by the way, joe biden not leading in iowa. not leading in new hampshire. you've got to go to the third state, nevada, to find a place where biden right now has a clear advantage. and you've got to go to the fourth state, nevada, to find one where he's really cleaning mup. there's black support in south carolina as a firewall. but the question is raised by these polls, if he doesn't win

in iowa, if he doesn't win in new hampshire, for that matter if he can't hang on in nevada, will a firewall like that hold in the fourth state? >> great numbers. you leave us as always with terrific questions which i will quickly bounce down to chris matthews who's in the spin room. i've got to say watching these candidates come in, it's a little game of which doesn't belong and why. there's tom steyer who's already spent the gdp of kwuruguay justo get into this game. >> bloomberg has already begun an apology tour by saying he's not for stop and frisk anymore which a big part of his new york experience, so he's making adjustments. the fact elizabeth warren is pulling back medicare for all and immediately on a long-term

transition, she's adjusting. they're all adjusting to the democratic party as it is right now. and the democratic party right now i believe is an anti-trump party. i can tell from our ratings people would much rather watch the decline and fall of donald trump than watch the battle among these people. they're just more interested in watching trump go down. they like these hearings. they like what they're learning about this president. they don't like -- they like the evidence piling up against him much more than they like following the horse race, which tells me they really have one passion going into next year's election, beat trump. i think that's driving everything. i think that's driving the buttigieg surge right now. but that's a february surge. it's not a november surge. are they really making a decision about buttigieg or are they looking for a parking place to slow this thing down? i think they're slowing the whole process down. they want a winner. that's what they want. they don't want a chance in the world of losing to trump again. i think that's the ideology of

the democratic party. center left, yes. but you must beat trump. >> so, chris, how will you know that the process has held that this party faced with this titanic struggle against this incumbent has done the right thing and has selected an electable candidate? >> well, they're going to have to do what they did in the new york democratic party for a hundred years. they've got to balance the ticket at some point. they're going to have to balance it ethnically and in terms of gender. there is a left in the democratic party which is young, it's dynamic, it's going places. very quickly it may be the futurary quickly by next year. but you also have a lot of moderate democrats and democrats who are not comfortable with this stuff. we'll see how they go with buttigieg. he's got to win that fight. i think it's got to be putting it together.

i don't see the melding of the ticket yet at all. >> here is the photo-op. on stage a baseball team plus one, ten democrats tonight in atlanta. let's just take some of this in, the quiet discomfort of having to stand there for photos while random cat calls come in from the audience, all of it affectionate, of course. and now the stage manager equally uncomfortably cues them to move over to the side. our moderators will be coming out shortly. known here locally as the fearsome foursome and a great -- a great exhibit of college degrees in this country. university of pennsylvania, chris hayes i'm looking at you way over index tonight with ashley parker of "the washington post" and andrea mitchell. we have stanford on the board with our own rachel maddow. and we have harvard for good

measure, kristen welker. and i said tonight they were announced they could also host jeopardy, all four of them. the candidates are behind their lecterns, their podia. did i get that right? >> yes, you did. we've been down this road before. podia i believe is the correct plural for podium. >> big time for latin. quid pro quo and podia. steve schmidt, one last prediction going into tonight. i always love to hear them. always love to hear if they hold. you looking for anyone to have a good or bad night specifically? >> i generally agree with chris. i think that the trump presidency is an emergency for the country. i think there is no higher issue than his removal from office. and that calls for a candidate who has the ability to assemble the broadest, widest possible political coalition that includes some republicans,

independents, democrats, to win an election that will be the most consequential election i think this country has had since 1864, maybe the 1940 election. but one of the three most consequential elections we've ever seen. and i do think there is a danger when you look at some of the ideology that we've seen front and center in this field is to remember that in america, a sociopath will beat a socialist i think seven days a week and twice on sunday, and nobody should underestimate donald trump's ability to frame an argument, to demagogue an opponent. and when we look at impeachment, despite the evidence and facts still the most likely outcome at this hour is impeachment, acquittal. and then the possibility perhaps of re-election. and then you would have a completely lawless and unchecked president who would know that he would be able to survive

basically any level of wrongdoing not knowing what the wine is. so the people on this stage and the couple of candidates thinking of running, they have an awesome responsibility to be able to start articulating something that is better and i think a fundamental question is where do we go from here. how do we start to unify this country? how do we bring it back together? and we haven't seen a lot of that in that debates. >> claire mccaskill, that ought to put a chill in the viewing audience. >> yeah. and the coalition is key. i think all these candidates realize that we cannot become a democratic nominee if a candidate cannot get the support of particularly black and brown people in this country and especially black women because they are overrepped in our primary process. but i do think that every candidate whether they are very progressive or whether they are

more moderate need to realize that the prize they have to stay focused on is that general election audience in november. and we've got to bring the coalition along, and we've got to make sure we expand it beyond the democratic primary voter. >> and i also think that the themes are really important. and to steve's point there's ideology and themes, and those two can go in different directions. you can be left ideologically but talk about bridging divides, solidarity, all of us coming together. it's both on important one for the democratic base because the democratic base likes that register about hope and unity as seen by the most successful democratic politician of our time. but also i think it's an important time for the country, and those two things can work in tandem. but that rhetorical register i think is extremely important. >> i'm looking for somebody to go after pete tonight, tow. somebody's going to go after pete tonight.

>> but i think they have one job tonight. demonstrate to the country having watched all day the impeachment hearings against donald trump, what you are opposed to him. how you beat him. what you are as a president as opposed to him. tonight the debate is not between them. it's between them and him. show who you are as opposed to that. >> we have a minute to go until we're under way. claire mccaskill one more strategic question for you before we start. how will they go after pete buttigieg? >> i think they'll start asking questions about -- they'll intimate his experience gap, you know, that this -- you know, we may be a slam -- we have a president who has never really been involved in government at the highest levels and what we got -- >> and don't forget policing. >> he's got some issues on criminal justice he's going to have to address. they're all busy up there writing because you can't bring anything with you. so they were all writing -- you do your homework while you can

before the debate begins. >> we're on the air for two hours, a special edition of "the 11th hour" when this has concluded. but the time has come to go down to that stage in atlanta. the msnbc "the washington post" democratic debate from atlanta starts now. we're in a battle for the soul of america. >> we're ready to build this majority. >> we need big ideas. >> we are in this together. >> it's time for us to remember who we are. >> this is a fight that is borne out of optimism. >> it's also about how we govern because we are one america. >> i'm talking about changing washington. >> to restore the principles of integrity. >> let's show them what we got. let's show them what humanity can do. >>