COUNTRIES TO PROVIDE SOMETHING OF POLITICAL VALUE.
THAT IS, AFTER ALL, AGAINST THE
LAW.
LAW. >> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION
TONIGHT, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT
HIDE DOEIDI PREZBELAH.
MICAH OYANG IS WITH US, FORMER
STAFF MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HE’S THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AT THE
THIRD WAY.
THIRD WAY. AND JONATHAN ALTER, COLUMNIST
FOR THE "DAILY BEAST" AND MSNBC
POLITICAL ANALYST IS WITH US.
HEIDI, LET ME START WITH YOU,
YOUR BREAKING NEWS REPORTING
ABOUT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE
CONSIDERING DP
CONSIDERING DP CONSIDERING.
CONSIDERING. DO WE KNOW NOW WHETHER NANCY
PELOSI OR -- WHETHER NANCY
PELOSI WANTS, LET’S START WITH
NANCY PELOSI, A SINGLE ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT THAT IS SIMPLY
ABOUT THE PHONE CALL WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE OR THE
POSSIBILITY OF INCLUDING, SAY,
ELEMENTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IN
SEPARATE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT?
IMPEACHMENT? >> WE DO KNOW, LAWRENCE, THAT
RIGHT NOW, SHE WANTS A SIMPLE
ARTICLE WITH AN UMBRELLA BEING
ABUSE OF POWER AND UNDERNEATH
THAT, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED
WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE WHICH
INCLUDES THAT PHONE CALL.
IT INCLUDES THE REPORTS ABOUT A
QUID PRO QUO ABOUT THE MILITARY
AID, INCLUDES PUSHING ASIDE THE
FORMER AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE IN
ORDER TO INSTALL THE PRESIDENT’S
HANDPICKED CONFIDANTS WHO REFER
REFERRED TO THEMSELVES AS THE
THREE AMIGOS WHICH HELPED PUSH
THE UKRAINIANS TO TRY TO COOK UP
CHARGES AGAINST THE BIDENS.
IT INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE THINGS
BUT IT IS NARROWLY FOCUSED IN
THE SENSE THAT IT DOES JUST
FOCUS ON UKRAINE, LAWRENCE.
STILL UNDER DEBATE IS THE SECOND
WAVE OF CHARGES WHICH WOULD BE
RELATED TO OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE
JUSTICE JUSTICE, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THERE’S A
MUCH MORE DIFFICULT AND
CONTENTIOUS ONE TO DECIDE ON.
WHETHER THAT IS GOING TO BE JUST
UKRAINE, THEY THINK THEY HAVE A
REALLY STRONG CASE GIVEN THE
OCTOBER 8th WHITE HOUSE LETTER
FROM PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL, BASICALLY TELLING
CONGRESS TO GO YOU KNOW WHERE
AND, NOT COMPLY WITH ANYTHING,
GOING TO INCLUDE ANYTHING ON
MUELLER ON OBSTRUCTION.
LAWRENCE, I’M TOLD THERE IT’S A
LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE
CONGRESS NEVER DID GET THE CHIEF
WITNESS IN THE
CHARGES, DON McGAHN TO TESTIFY
BEFORE CONGRESS AND THEY DON’T
WANT TO GIVE ANY EXCUSES FOR
ANYBODY TO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY
BELIEVE IS A CLEAR-CUT CASE OF
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WHEN IT
COMES AS WELL TO OBSTRUCTION.
>> HEIDI, IS THERE ANY
INDICATION IN YOUR REPORTING OF
WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE, HOW
WILL THE DEMOCRATS ARRIVE AT A
CONSENSUS OF WHAT THE SHAPE OF
THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE?
>> THAT’S STILL REALLY EARLY,
LAWRENCE, AND I MUST STRESS THAT
IN MY REPORTING THAT WHILE THERE
IS THIS BIG UMBRELLA FOCUS ON
THE NARRATIVE OF ABUSE OF POWER,
THE SPEAKER’S OFFICE DID CAUTION
ME THAT THE ACTUAL LEGAL
DRAFTING OF ARTICLES HAS NOT
BEGUN BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T
COLLECTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
YET AND ALL THE INFORMATION BUT
HISTORICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
IS THAT ALL OF THE COMMITTEES
WOULD SEND IN THEIR BEST
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. JERRY NADLER HAS CALLED ON ALL
COMMITTEES TO SEND THEIR BEST
INFORMATION TO JUDICIARY WHICH
WOULD THEN BE TASKED WITH
DRAWING UP SPECIFIC ARTICLES.
BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE SPEAKER
IS GOING TO BE THE ONE WHO
DRIVES THIS ALL AND WHO MAKES
ALL OF THESE DECISIONS AS TO
SPECIFICALLY HOW MANY ARTICLES
THERE ARE GOING TO BE AND RIGHT
NOW, AGAIN, WE’RE A SNAPSHOT IN
TIME.
TIME. ACCORDING TO MY REPORTING, THE
THING THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED IS
THE ABUSE OF POWER NARRATIVE
THAT THEY WILL HAMMER OUT
SOMETHING ON
SOMETHING ON OBSTRUCTION/CONTEMPT OF
OBSTRUCTION/CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, BUT THAT ADDITION
ARTICLES AT THIS TIME ARE
UNLIKELY.
UNLIKELY. NOW, THAT COULD CHANGE WITH
PUSHBACK FROM VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMITTEE
CHAIRPEOPLE WHO’VE BEEN DOING
MONTHS OF INVESTIGATIVE WORK ON
ISSUES LIKE EMOLUMENTS WHO
BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
CLEARLY VIOLATING THE
CONSTITUTION BY BEING,
CONTINUING TO, YOU KNOW, OWN HIS
COMPANIES AND BENEFIT FROM THE
PRESIDENCY WITH THE TRUMP HOTEL
IN WASHINGTON AND FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS THERE TAKING UP IN
ORDER TO CURRY FAVOR WITH HIM.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE’RE JUST
LOOKING AT ABUSE OF POWER IN
UKRAINE AND THEN SOMETHING
SEPARATE ON OBSTRUCTION IN
UKRAINE AND MAYBE SOMETHING FROM
THE MUELLER REPORT.
>> MIKA, YOURWITH YOUR EXPERIENC
WORKING IN THE HOUSE AND THE
DEMOCRATIC STAFF SIDE, HOW DOES
THAT SOUND TO YOU?
AND DO YOU THINK THAT THE HOUSE
GENERAL -- DEMOCRATS IN THE
HOUSE WOULD AGREE TO THAT
APPROACH?
APPROACH? >> LOOK, I THINK IT’S ALWAYS A
CHALLENGE TO MANAGE A CAUCUS AS
DIVERSE AS ONE THAT’S IN THE
MAJORITY.
MAJORITY. YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH COMPETING
POLITICAL INTERESTS HERE AND
CONCERNS, BUT ONE THING WE’VE
LEARNED IS NANCY PELOSI IS A
MASTER POLITICIAN AND HER
ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY
WHERE THE CAUCUS IS AND WHAT
THEY CAN SUPPORT AND WHAT THE
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS ARE IS
UNMATCHED AND SHE’S GOING TO BE
ABLE TO MARRY THAT WITH WHAT’S
THE LEGAL CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT
OF THIS PRESIDENT?
I THINK HER INSTINCT, MAKE IT AS
SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND
WITH THIS UMBRELLA OF ABUSE OF
POWER IS REALLY HELPFUL.
ALL TOO OFTEN DEMOCRATS CAN GET
BOGGED DOWN IN PROCESS ARGUMENTS
AND MAKING IT A VERY SIMPLE,
CLEAR, THIS IS ABOUT HOW TRUMP
HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE AND USED
HIS POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL
BENEFIT, THAT CAN HELP CUT
THROUGH ALL THE LEGALESE.
>> JONATHAN, THERE IS -- THERE’S
A RISK TO HISTORY IN A VERY
NARROW DRAFTING OF ARTICLES AND
THAT IS DOES IT LEAVE THE
IMPLICATION, IF YOU LEAVE OUT
THE EMOLUMENTS VIOLATIONS, THAT
THAT’S OKAY, DOES IT SOMEHOW
CERTIFY WHAT DONALD TRUMP HAS
DONE RUNNING A HOTEL BUSINESS IN
WASHINGTON, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING
INCOME FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
THAT WAY?
THAT WAY? DOES IT CERTIFY HIS REFUSAL TO
OBEY THE LAW AND HAND OVER A
VERY CLEAR LAW THAT SAYS
TREASURY DEPARTMENT MUST HAND
OVER ANY TAX RETURN THAT THE
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS AND
DEMANDS, THEY’RE VIOLATING THAT
LAW AND A STRING OF OTHER
THINGS.
THINGS. IS IT A CONCERN TO LEAVE OUT
THIS LONG STRING OF THINGS MIGHT
LEAVE THEM AS CERTIFIED
ACCEPTABLE ACTION FOR THE FUTURE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? >> I GUESS IT IS A CONCERN, BUT
IT’S A BALANCING TEST BECAUSE
YOU WANT TO BE POLITICALLY
DISCIPLINED, AND NANCY PELOSI’S
A BOSS.
A BOSS. REMEMBER WHAT WILL ROGERS SAID
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS, YOU KNOW,
I’M A MEMBER OF NO ORGANIZED
POLITICAL PARTY, I’M A DEMOCRAT.
NANCY PELOSI IS DISPROVING THIS.
RUNNING A REALLY DISCIPLINED
EFFORT.
EFFORT. TODAY SHE RELEASED A FACT SHEET
WHICH I WOULD URGE EVERYBODY TO
REVIEW.
REVIEW. IT’S JUST FOUR PAGES.
FIRST PAGE IS --
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN. THIRD PAGE IS A COVER-UP.
SO IT LAYS OUT IN VERY BOLD
COLORS EXACTLY WHAT THE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WAS.
NOW, GIVEN WHAT MICK MULVANEY
DID THIS WEEK, THE ARGUMENT THAT
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO IS --
I KNOW YOU DON’T LIKE THAT
EXPRESSION, BUT IT’S NOW IN
TATTERS.
TATTERS. >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> SO WHEN WE GET INTO THE
TRIAL, AND THERE’S GOING TO BE A
TRIAL, THAT’S NOW CLEAR, CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS PRESIDING, WE
MAY NOT EVEN BE ARGUING ABOUT
WHETHER THERE WAS ABUSE OF
POWER.
POWER. THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW ON THE
WAY TO ADMITTING THAT THERE WAS
ABUSE OF POWER.
THEN THE ONLY ARGUMENT WILL BE
DOES IT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
IMPEACHMENT?
IMPEACHMENT? THAT IS A VERY, VERY BAD STATE
OF AFFAIRS FOR DONALD TRUMP
WHERE ALL YOU’RE ARGUING ABOUT
IS NOT WHETHER HE DID SOMETHING
REALLY WRONG BUT JUST WHETHER IT
RISES TO THE LEVEL OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S A CASE THAT DEMOCRATS CAN
MAKE IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE
COUNTRY IN THAT TRIAL.
>> HEIDI, DOES YOUR REPORTING --
IN YOUR REPORTING ARE YOU
FINDING ANY KIND OF LINES OF
DEFENSE FORMING FOR THE
PRESIDENT IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES?
REPRESENTATIVES? >> NOT REALLY.
I’VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH SOME
REPUBLICANS WHO THE DEMOCRATS
WOULD BE TARGETING IN ORDER TO
GET VOTES FROM SOME REPUBLICANS
AND THEY’VE SAID THAT THEY
REALLY JUST WANT PROOF POSITIVE
THAT THIS IS A QUID PRO QUO.
WELL, THOSE MEETINGS WERE PRIOR
TO MICK MULVANEY’S CONFESSION,
ESSENTIALLY, THAT IT WAS A QUID
PRO QUO.
PRO QUO. AND SO I THINK THEY’RE JUST KIND
OF LAYING LOW FOR RIGHT NOW.
THERE’S DEFINITELY THE MAJORITY
OF REPUBLICANS WHO WILL NEVER
VOTE FOR THIS BUT THEY DON’T
NEED THE MAJORITY.
THEY JUST NEED SOME REPUBLICANS
TO VOTE FOR IT AND IN MY
DISCUSSION WITH DEMOCRATS,
THERE’S A SPECIFIC FRAMING OF
THIS.
THIS. IT’S NOT JUST ABUSE OF POWER
BECAUSE HE WAS WITHHOLDING A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
IT’S ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE
REPORTEDLY, AND IF THE FACTS
BEAR OUT, HE WAS WITHHOLDING
FEDERALLY APPROPRIATED TAX
DOLLARS ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY BECAUSE JUST TO REMIND
PEOPLE, THIS MILITARY AID WAS TO
BE USED BY UKRAINE WHICH IS A
BUFFER COUNTRY AGAINST RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION AND RUSSIAN
EXPANSION.
EXPANSION. AND, THEREFORE, IT BECOMES A
DANGER AND A RISK TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT IS
THE FRAMINGEING THAT DEMOCRATS A
GOING TO USE WITH THE PUBLIC AND
WITH THESE REPUBLICANS THAT
THEY’RE HOPING TO BRING OVER.
>> MIEKE, I WANT TO CHECK WITH
YOU ON RACHEL’S REPORTING AT THE
TOP OF THE HOUR THAT THEY’RE NOW
GOING TO SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS ON
WEEKENDS GOING FORWARD.
DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU LIKE THEY
ARE TRYING TO MAKE SOME KIND OF,
AT LEAST, PENCILED IN DEADLINE
AT THIS POINT?
>> YEAH, I THINK THEY ARE.
AND WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS
WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT’S
OF AN URGENT NATIONAL CONCERN,
THE SCHEDULE GOES OUT THE
WINDOW.
WINDOW. YOU WIND UP WORKING AROUND THE
CLOCK.
CLOCK. YOU WORK WEEKENDS.
AS YOU POINTED OUT, IT’S USUALLY
THE STAFF WHO DOES THAT.
THE MEMBERS WILL POP IN, BUT YOU
WILL PRESS REALLY HARD TOWARD A
DEADLINE.
DEADLINE. SO THE STAFF AND THE MEMBERS
WORKING ON THESE ISSUES HAVE A
LOT OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS AHEAD OF
THEM BECAUSE IT’S NOT JUST THE
DEPOSITIONS, THEMSELVES, IT’S
GOING THROUGH THEM.
IT’S FACT CHECKING.
IT’S PULLING IN ALL THE
DOCUMENTS THAT THEY’VE ASKED
FOR.
FOR. THERE’S A LOT TO GO THROUGH
HERE.
HERE. BUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH ALL
THAT INFORMATION IS FILLING IN
THE DETAILS.
THE DETAILS. WE KNOW THE BASIC OUTLINES OF
THIS.
THIS. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
USING HIS OFFICE TO PUT PRESSURE
ON UKRAINIANS FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL BENEFIT.
PERSONAL BENEFIT. IT’S JUST THE QUESTION OF HOW.
AND THEN THE REAL ISSUE WILL BE
ONCE WE HAVE ALL THAT EFVIDENCEE
THEY LAY THAT ALL OUT THERE
BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DOES
THAT CONVINCE SOME OF THE
REPUBLICANS AND SOME OF THESE
PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE FENCE THAT
THIS WAS, IN FACT, THE QUID PRO
QUO, THE KIND OF REAL ABUSE OF
POWER, THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
THINK THAT IT WAS?
>> MIEKE EOYANG, THANK YOU FOR