that is the business of the executive branch of the white house and the office of the white house. >> corruption is not the business, or it shouldn't be, of the white house or anyone in it. >> the white house decides to do with their privileged communication is the business of the white house. >> do you believe that's true even if that communication involves crime or fraud? i'm sure you're aware that there is an exception to any claim of privilege. the privilege can't be used to conceal crime or fraud? >> this is before any crime or fraud that should be referred to the justice department for investigation. as i did. >> the whistleblower further alleges that white house officials told the whistleblower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript, that is, of the call from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored. and instead it was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. one white house official described this act as an abuse

of the white house? >> i do think there were a number of republican senators, i spoke to senator graham on the floor yesterday, obviously we saw majority leader mcconnell join with minority leader schumer in passing a unanimous resolution that the whistle-blower complaint ought to be advanced to the intelligence committees. i do think there were signals sent by strong supporters of the president that he should come forward with this information because they were confident it would showing no. in reading this memo summarizing that conversation, i see a there there. i see very clear evidence of a new president eager to receive assistance from the united states and the president of the united states saying to him, do us a favor and then later saying meet with my personal attorney rudy giuliani who is not a representative of the state department, the defense department. if president trump's answer as to why he did this, why he pressed for an investigation, why he held up the aid was that somehow he was conce

the white house also needs to be concerned. the president has been paranoid about the intelligence committee and this is going to play into that. that should be concerning to all of us if the president doesn't think he can trust the intelligence community. what should keep the white house up at night are the 18 or so republicans night how who aren't up for reelection and don't particularly care for them and they may give the democrats the legitimacy to moved forward to probe this stuff. >> do you see the possibility of republicans breaking away? we haven't seen that. >> not yet. but give this some time. the democrats aren't in formal impeachment now. the problem for the white house is the whistle-blower clearly has names of people who can be subpoenaed and documents that can be requested. he's provided essentially a path to impeachment. i talked to a republican senator who said the worst part about this is that the democrats now are able to focus their probe on a limited number of people and documents they want to begin to buil

white house. >> corruption is not the business or it shouldn't be of the white house or anyone in it. >> the white house decides to do what their privileged communications and information is i believe the business of the white house. >> do you believe that's true even if that communication involves crime or fraud? i'm sure you're aware there's an exception to any claim of privilege. privilege can't be used to conceal crime or fraud. >> any crime or fraud or instances of wrongdoing should be referred to the justice department for investigation, as i did. >> the whistle-blower further alleges that white house officials told the whistle-blower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript of the call from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored and instead it was loaded into a separate electronic system that is used, otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. one white house official described

they have the summary that the white house put out. they have the whistle-blower complaint deemed credible by the acting director of national intelligence. they have the intelligence general inspector, inspector general, rather, they have his memo. they also have the president's comments about all of this, now all in the public record. adam schiff, the chairman of the house intelligence committee is going to run point on this investigation and in the last couple of hours we were able to catch up with him and ask him about the timeline and also about the next steps in the inquiry. here he is. >> we've already begun reaching out to witnesses. we're going to be noticing depositions or interviews as soon as next week. we're going to hold hearings as soon as we can. we expect subpoenas to go out, more subpoenas to go out first thing next week as well. so we're moving with all speed. >> so even though congress begins a two-week break starting today, in fact, members of the house intelligence committee are expected to return back here to wash

there's a white house florist and a lovely shop on the ground floor of the white house. and with the social secretary taking the lead in this, and bringing in everyone. bringing in the white house florist, bringing in the white house chef, who is an extraordinary and visual. -- individual. chris comerford i got to know very well and she was an assistant chef when i first worked at the white house. she was promoted during the president bush years. it was wonderful to see her in this lead position as the white house chef. -once she hasther an understanding of what the goal is for the evening, then the presentation of the menu, and how she brings together the first course, the second course, and of course the wonderful dessert. themeit right within that and plan of the first lady. host: we are showing our viewers what the table looks like. you see the gold and the china. a mix i believe of ... capricia: this axle he was china selected for 200th anniversary this actually-- was selected for the 200 anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone of the white house it was selecte

and tt -- the white house hadn't commentedn it. but today the whistle-blower's complaint said white housese lawyers directed sff to move itda there. y we got a statement from the white house sayg it was a national securit council lawyer who told officials to move it there. what that tells you is the white saye didn't have anything to do with this. it was a national securityco ho did it. that's something people are going to be payayg attention to. >> we learned that the house foreign affairs commiee has subpoenaed the secretary of state, mike pompeo. could we learn more about this whole operation if he's called to capitol hill? >> absolutely. what they reallolutant from pompeo is documen. they want to kno more about foreign affairs t officers at embassy, in ukraine, who apparently expressed concern about rudy gt ruani's freelancing in that country as a sort quasi diplomat. d, you know, what exactly the concerns were that they were pressing. they want to know more about, you know, giuliani is arguing that he thisll at the behest of t

that's the defense of the white house. their view is they will have to respond to matters of impeachment from capitol hill but not trying to take a hunkered down approach but more on offense, if you will, semantics can matter in those ways. that's part of what we're hearing from people we've been talking to. >> do you know what rapid is and what might not be rapid? have responses so far in the context of the years you've been reporting been fast or slower? this is hard to say because we're facing an impeachment inquiry which is very unique. >> we looked to what the president said. he thought the impeachment issue was over. it was unlikely to move forward and nancy pe lolosi had been signaling that as well. the events of the whistle-blower complaint and ukraine call have happened very rapidly. it's only been fewer than two weeks that this has been publicly known and we're now in a very different posture where more than 225 democrats on capitol hill are for an impeachment inquiry. that's a different situation and it's happen

it was a white house memorandum. here you have the leader of republicans in the house of representatives who hasn't even read the transcript, who hasn't even read that memorandum, because everybody that read it said the most important line, the most germane line was the one that scott pelly read him, i'm going to need something from you, though, and kevin m he did know it was in the transcript. >> it's a stunning moment. we've got the transcript in front of me. the president, i would like you to do us a favor, though. nobody in the white house seems to have understood that the information in the transcript itself put together with the facts that are known about what was happening in that period paint a picture of a president requesting the most personal political advantage from a new ukrainian president who was at that time facing a u.s. arms embargo. the commander of the ukrainian army on the ground who needed weapons we had promised them, congress had voted to give them were waiting for their arrival. they were hel

house. >> kaitlan, help me read the white house confirming this here. forgive me if this is off, but by saying white house lawyers directed this, is that trying to shift the blame here, saying the lawyers said this has to happen? is that the read? or is it just more looking for a legal foundation for that move? >> reporter: that could potentially be it. what we had known before is it was white house lawyers that directed this transcript to be moved. this is specifically putting it on a lawyer for the national security council. that's, of course, what john bolton used to run. those are the aides on the calls transcribing what it is the president says though they world leaders. that is essential what we seem to be moving, not just the white house counsel's office, thew putting it on the national security council's office specifically. we don't know who it is. there's not a lot of detail about exactly whether or not that national security council lawyer who directed this to be moved was under the direction of someone else in the counsel's office or potenti

the white house in crisis. i'm jake tapper and what has been a nonstop and truly unprecedented day of news. president trump apparently furious about the whistle-blower who's allegations now threaten to bring about his impeachment. sources tell cnn mr. trump behind closed doors earlier today said he wanted to know who in his administration spoke with the whistle-blower and according to the "new york times" which first reported the story president trump then said "because that's close to a spy. you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? we used to handle it a little different than we do now." apparent reference to excuses as well as a misuse of the term treason, but the president's overthe top response comes in context, comes after a key moment in the trump impeachment inquiry. today we got our first look at the full whistle-blower complaint about the president. the one that sparked this whole impeachment investigation. this whistle-blower sournding te alarm abou

the impeachment team ran the white house. in the trump white house, there's no communication other than the president's twitter account. there's no political apparatus, no communication between them and the rnc and their interactions with the congress. we saw how ham-handed it was just the other day when the white house staff sent the republican talking points to the democrats on the hill. it makes you kind of laugh, but they're just not prepared to deal with this, and it shows and it's going to show. and one of the things that's so different now from the mueller report, it was long, poorly written, distorted by barr, hard to understand. this ukraine thing in the president's own words is very, very clear. and think about it this way. everybody in the united states has watched "the godfather" and "the sopranos." everyone knows what the president is saying in that telephone call. there's no confusion. >> that's the context adam schiff tried to put it in on thursday during testimony. rudy giuliani shared a text message he says n

pamela, tell us how the white house is explaining this move? >> basically with the statement out this morning, the white house is acknowledging that, yes, an nfc lawyer directed the conversation between president trump and the ukranian president to be moved to a classified system, but officials said it was appropriate. the way white house officials are explaining this is, look, the transcript was already classified so we didn't do anything wrong by moving it to a separate system, but it is important to know that this was in a highly classified system. we've seen from the transcript that it didn't meet the bar for that highly classified information. the move is unusual, but this was a statement given to us this morning. let me just read it. nfc lawyers directed that the highly classified document be handled appropriately. just to take a step back, the way this would work is you have a lawyer that normally handles national security issues that would reach out to the intelligence director and say, hey, i want you to move this to your system, becau

i mentioned the white house notes today that were released by the white house. notes from the president's call with the president of ukraine. i mean it's right there in black and white that president trump in fact did what democrats are accusing him of doing and why they have brought impeachment proceedings against him. in the notes released by the white house, the president overtly does ask ukraine for help digging up dirt against president trump's potential 2020 democratic rival, joe biden. there's a lot of talk about biden's son. that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general, meaning with bill barr, that would be great. at this point i feel like i need to apologize. i hereby apologize. last night on this show i said somewhat cavalierly that while we were expecting the white house to release notes of this phone call today, there was no reason to expect that the trump white house would allow for the release of any notes from this call that implicated the president and the beh

was not the first time white house officials and white house lawyers had taken a step like that to hide essentially, to bury records of a presidential phone call with a foreign power. and that, of course, teed up this big question. well, what else is in the vault? what else have they hidden on that server? what else has this white house tried to lock down? what other evidence of the president's behavior or transcripts of the president's calls have they tried to wall off from access even for most u.s. officials and cabinet-level officials, not because they were national security sensitive, because they would make the president look bad because they reflect the kind of behavior that might get the president impeached? well, just before we got on the air, just moments ago "the washington post" published this new scoop having to do with not the phone call to the ukrainian president, which has led to the impeachment proceedings this week, but rather the infamous meeting that took place in the oval office in 2017 between president trump and two senior officials from russia. this was may 2017.

you went to the white house first. so you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress. >> there were issues within this, a couple of things. one, it did appear that it has executive privilege. if it does have executive privilege, it is the white house that determines that. i cannot determine that as the director of national intelligence. >> but in this case, the white house, the president is the subject of the complaint. he's the subject of the wrongdoing. were you aware when you went to the white house for advice about whether evidence of wrongdoing by the white house should be provided to the congress, were you aware the white house counsel has taken the unprecedented position that the privilege applies to communications involving the president, when he was president, involving the president, when he wasn't president, involving people who never served in the administration, involving people who never served in the administration, even when they're n

now over at the white house. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey.rkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, str

the white house counsel. >> the answer is no. was it your idea not to answer questions based under the executive privilege. >> i have not had any conversation with the white house counsel. >> so it is your idea -- >> i have not had any conversation with the white house counsel. i can only go by this letter. it was not my idea. >> not your idea. was it the president or anybody else that you felt that your communications were official white house communications. >> the white house has asked me not to disclose the substance of any president or advisers, and i recognize it is not my privilege, but i am respecting the white house decision. >> let me talk about the relationship with the president after he assumed office. how many times has the president asked you to meet alone in the house white. >> i am asked not to disclose. >> how many times has he requested? >> i don't know the answer of that. >> and how many times. >> i have been told not to discuss -- >> that he may have committed a criminal offense. >> i am

an absolute cover-up by the white house. mr. lewandowski is here and has vital information about presidential obstruction of justice. the white house wants to limit our ability to hear it all. mr. lewandowski was called alone, one-on-one, into the oval office on june 19, 2017, and again on july 19, 2017, and the president did something i find startling. he dictated the speech to mr. lewandowski, not for mr. lewandowski, but for then attorney general mister sessions. he told mr. lewandowski to put the following words in the a.g.'s mouth. quote, i am going to meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling in future elections, so nothing can happen in future elections. the quote is from volume 2, page 91 of the mueller report. as the report found, limiting the investigation to future elections would've cut off any past conduct. it would've ended the investigation of the president's conduct. the evidence found by the special counsel met

the white house probably didn't leak this out. >> i wouldn't say the white house. but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not. i don't know. but it would not be from an intelligence intercept, i will say that. >> i'm just saying the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right? and it is important for the state department and appropriate agencies to get -- i'm not saying it is all the intelligence agency. but when a president talks to a foreign leader, it is confidential, there could be some facts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agencies, not just the ic. i want to be clear about that. but this is now the third time. i'm not a way of this ever happening before. of departments of call ykept de getting out. >> it is unprecedented and i would say that i think that the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of the ukraine is probably unprecedented as well. >> well, we appreciate you being here and have fun -- be careful what you say be

name but described in the whistleblower's report, white house lawyers telling people in the white house to basically reclassify the transcript of the president's call? move it into the most high level security holding they have for it? would you say those white house lawyers should be out getting their own personal criminal defense lawyers right now? >> i'm glad you asked that. because that to me was one of the most stunning things about this document. we know, when you have a rae nasty scandal, you want to ask, where were the lawyers? in this case, if that complaint proves out, we've got lawyers who were participating in a conspiracy. and i would be surprised if those lawyers tonight aren't consulting with counsel. let me read you something really short, lawrence. it comes from the aba's rules of professional conduct which are pretty much in effect in every state in the union. a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. now, that means that not only do those lawyers have potential criminal exposure but the

a preservation order to the white house to ensure that the white house doesn't try to destroy evidence and spirit these transcripts away. there is supposed to be the status quo locked in place. the fact is we have one whistle-blower, that we know. we know from that whistle-blower complaint that others in the white house including potentially senior white house officials were so concerned that they actually conveyed their concerns to the whistle-blower. and so my suspicion is that even if the white house doesn't play ball, individuals within and around the white house who were privy to these calls may go to congress, may decide to do the right thing, may decide to put their country ahead of their president. >> joyce, let's talk about the law here. impeachment does not require criminality. it's high crimes and misdemeanors, as you know better than any of us. but there may also be violations of law. and the attorney general of the united states is directly involved. he's implicated in the whistle-blower's complaint. and we now learn that the whistle-blower tried different channels to get

who at the white house spoke with you, if mien? do have any evidence president trump was briefed or weighed in on this decision? moving forward, what level of investigative effort did you take to look into this through the inspector general? did you have discussions with the inspector general in and then i want to know even more. are you aware of any further intelligence information that tends to corroborate this allegation? what else is out there throughout the intelligence community? did you do a thorough enough job to truly investigate this allegation? >> sam, just a question about this reconstructed conversation transcript that came out today. it sounds like it certainly seems it's intensified calls from democrats to move towards impeachment. there are some republicans who are sticking by the president on this, saying there's nothing to this. there are plenty you are hearing from who are expressing some measure of concern over this. when you look at that reaction, it does raise the question why the white house did this. was thi

i'm told by a senior white house official that the white house also uses voice recognition software, and so it is a combination of efforts. the voice recognition software will then give the transcript out and then it will be looked at by the note takers in the room listening to the call. the other nse and white house officials who are listening in on that call, they look at the transcript and sign off. but what is notable here, kate, is on a couple of occasions there is the ellipses, the dot, dot, dot. one of the areas, of course, is when the president is talking about joe biden. the first time erases biden it says to me, it says in the transcript biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. so if you can look into it, dot, dot, dot, it sounds horrible to me. now, we don't know if that is the voice recognition software because the voice trailed off or if something else was said that is not in this. i have asked the white house for clarification on that and have not heard back, kate. >> all right, pamela. thank you so much. i really appreciate it. i have a couple of que

speaker nancy pelosi, taking aim at the white house. >> the complaint states that the white house tried to lock down all records of the call. this is a cover up this is a cover up >> that was peter alexander reporting. >>> the white house is struggling to find its footing in the wake of the whistle-blower complaint behind the scenes, sources tell nbc news there is a sense of, quote, total panic, with another person describing the mood among staff as shell shocked mr. trump is facing blow back for going afternoon the source of the whistle-blower complaint. nbc's hallie jackson has the details. >> reporter: for that high-profile hearing, viewer, and aggrieved. >> i just watched a little bit of this on television. it's a disgrace to our country it's another witch-hunt. here we go again it's adam schiff and his crew making up stories and sitting there like pious, whatever you want to call them. the democrats are going to lose the election they know it that's why they're doing it. and it should never be allowed what's happened to this president. >> reporter: publicly, the president's blastin

was there a coverup in the white house? the acting director of national intelligence grilled today, asked why he held onto the whistle-blower's complaint. why he went to the white house first and not congress. he acknowledged the whistle-blower did the right thing. and tonight, what the whistle-blower's complaint now public reveals. he says white house officials were alarmed by that phone call with the ukrainian president and that some allegedly tried to lock down the transcript on a separate computer system to keep it from view. >>> meanwhile, as this was playing out today, president trump behind closed doors here in new york city, and a recording now surfacing of what he said. furious and unloading, comparing the whistle-blower and white house sources to spies. and telling people in the room, "you know what we used to do with spies and treason." some in the room shocked. >>> the first major snowstorm set to hit. the winter storm warning tonight. several feet of snow. rob marciano with the track. >>> the stunning new numbe

you're tracking this inside the white house. i'm curious about the conversations you're having there with folks around the president, and is there a sense on their part that impeachment is now something that is inevitable? >> it's increasingly looking inevitable, and the comments around the white house is this could play to the president's political advantage, but when you talk in a more private conversation, they're much more candid and reveal there is some concern here, there is anxiety here, there is a feeling that president trump for months has been preparing for impeachment. he's almost in some ways been goading nancy pelosi to take this step. now that she has taken this step, this is a very uncomfortable and troubling reality for the president, and it's something he's going to have to be dealing with in the months ahead. and you talk to people in the white house and there is a fear that this is not a team ready for an impeachment showdown. they are understaffed, they have been habitually undisciplined from the very beginni

chief white house correspondent john roberts' life at the white house with more on that one. she said she's very excited. >> yeah. one of the reasons why is because a central part of the whistle-blower complaint appears to have been confirmed. the white house confirming what we knew to be the case yesterday, and that is that lawyers of the white house -- we don't know if it's a white house counsel's office or lawyers for the national security council -- directed the transcript of the president's call with president zelensky of ukraine to be moved to a highly secure computer system. the question is, why was it moved? to back was this a one-off directive, or is it standard operating procedure at the white house to keep all transcripts with foreign leaders on the system? the white house will not talk about that aspect of it. all we know right now is that the transcript was moved, but we have no idea of the context of why it was moved. it is the case that early in the administration phone calls that the president had with then- then-australian prime minister trumbull and the then

he said he went to the white house to get that resolved. here's how he explained it during the testimony. >> it was not stone walling. i didn't receive direction from anybody. i was just trying to work through the process and the law, the way it is written. i have to comply with the way the law is, not the way some people would like it to be. >> reporter: but democrats pushed back and said that this process was essentially broken. that you had a situation where the acting director of national intelligence, the nation's top intelligence official, had allegations about the attorney general and the president and then he went to the justice department for legal advice, then he went to the white house for advice on how to handle the president's conversations. here's congressman adam schiff. >> is the first party you went to outside of your office to seek advice at counsel direction, the white house? >> i have consulted with the white house counsel and eventually we also consulted with the office of legal counsel. >> my question is, did you go to

from the white house. >> from the white house. >> it's not in dispute. you actually had of course the whistleblower's complaint lining up very neatly with what the white house themselves released. >> right. >> and, sam, i want to go against the grain here a bit this morning where all people are talking about musing about the conventional wisdom is that the risk is with democrats. >> right. >> they're going too quickly in the is what donald trump is trying to spread and trumpists on tv. actually, the real risk seems to me to be with republicans who have seen donald trump lie for the past three years and they've gotten away with it. so jody ernst and others believe that they can say with a straight face, i haven't read a seven, eight-page report. ask me about ethanol and i'll speak to that. >> with redactions. >> she's in a swing state. here is the against communiinte saying we are deeply troubled where the president of the united states held up military aid to a democracy under attack from russia until he got dirt that was dug up -- >> right. >> as was fw

cnn's white house reporter jeremy diamond is live outside the white house for us. a lot to unpack here. let's start with the new cnn reporting about the length the white house went to, to limit access to records of the president's calls with putin and the crown prince of saudi arabia. what more can you tell us? >> reporter: we learned already through the whistle-blower complaint that the transcript of the president's call with ukraine president that now infamous july conversation that the transcript of that call was moved on to a highly classified system and now cnn is learning that this was not the only time that the white house sought to restrict access to transcripts and records of the president's calls with other foreign leaders. it also happened in the case of a phone conversation with the crown prince of saudi arabia. and that call was after the murder of the journalist jamal chashoggi and we also know at least one of the president's phone conversations with vladimir putin, records to that call were also restricted. we saw transcripts of these calls not going

he went to the white house. he seemed to say in his defense today, every other complaint goes to congress, he said, like, yes, but they normally don't have to do with the president. right? >> sure. >> did he do the right thing? >> well, i don't know. you know, i -- i -- like many of the congressmen said during the hearing today, i have absolutely no reason to question his motives. he is a man of distinction and has served this country well for so many decades. but the question is his judgment around making that decision raises a lot of issues. had he, instead, handled the complaint the way every other whistle-blower complaint was handled, he would have escaped i think a lot of this criticism. he has fourunfortunately painte himself into a corner. in that testimony dancing on the razor's edge trying to figure out -- trying to explain why he handled this complaint differently than every other one we're aware of, every other one he's, he has or will interact with. and i'm not sure that those answers were entirely s

the white house did not direct me to withhold the information. neither did the office of legal has beenthat opinion unclassified and disseminated. the question came down to urgent concern, a legal definition. it does not mean is it important or timely. criteriancern met the discussed several times. all that did was just takeaway the seven days. just because it was not voted to this -- forwarded to the committee did not mean it went unanswered. ig and the justice department referred it to the bureau of investigation for investigation. that was working while i was endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed. didas not stonewalling, i not receive direction from anybody. i was just trying to work through the process and the law the way it was written. i have to comply with the way that the law is, not the way some people would like it to be. if i could do otherwise, it would've been more convenient for me, congressman. rep. carson: lastly, as you sit here today, do you commit to providing every single whistleblower complaint intende

the white house has not provided a comment. the classification of records about trump's correspondence with foreign officials is now central to house democrats' impeachment inquiry after an intelligence community whistle-blower claimed the white house placed a record of trump's july phone call with the president of ukraine on a highly classified computer system that few have access to. it is unclear whether documentation of trump's white house meeting with russian officials was placed into that system. >>> coming up, president trump unloads as the white house works overtime to contain the growing ukraine scandal. >> more on the president's late nights spent making the case on twitter that there is no controversy, while demanding to meet the whistle-blower and also accusing the chair of the house intel committee of treason. we're going to have the very latest on that, your morning's other top stories. all of it in less than three minutes. >>> after a weekend tweet storm, president trump is demanding to know the identity of the w

lawyers actually went to the white house to review the transcript of the call, since the white house was also aware of these allegations. those lawyers, after going to the white house and listening to this, alerted officials at d.o.j.'s criminal division, and the deputy attorney general's office, that attorney general bill barr was in fact mentioned on that call. it wasn't until, though, more than a week later, that the inspector general for the intelligence community actually officially referred this matter to the department of justice. now, the justice department has previously said that bill barr was informed, when that criminal referral was delivered to d.o.j., in late august, and that barr was minimally involved in this issue. and of course, we know that the d.o.j. ultimately decided not to open a full-blown criminal investigation into potential campaign finance violations stemming from that july 25th phone call. so these new details, jim, really about the d.o.j.'s early awareness of the allegations, they raise even more questions now, about any potential involvement from the at

there's not a white house appointee atop the army. there's not a white house appointee atop the air force. >> as they start an investigation into scotland. >> as they start an investigation into scotland. it's rudderless. donald trump like all presidents needs advice. donald trump especially needs advice because he's ill informed and undisciplined. >> michael steele, should we stay up late waiting for a lot of reaction to the departure of bolton and fellow republicans calling for rigor in the selection process of the fourth national security adviser if three years' time? >> no, i don't think we should so we can all kind of turn in after this show and get a good night's rest because that's exactly how donald trump wants this to play out. keep in mind as tim has just laid out, there are several very key important vacancies still in existence in the national security space, alone. before you get into other aspects of the governmentwrit large that have an acting in charge or in some cases no one, so that's how trump likes it. it's laughab

announcer: c-span provides unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy evans from washington, d.c. end around the country so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. yesterday, senate minority leader chuck schumer held a news conference on a white house memo outlining a call between president trump in the ukrainian president in july. the minority leader said the white house memo justified the decision by house speaker policy to officially launch and impeachment inquiry. an impeachment inquiry. sen. schumer: ok. good afternoon, everybody, and i'm sorry for being a little bit late. i'm going to talk about two things, first what happened in the senate, and then what is happening in the house and here in washington, but the two are related. there's a common theme to the events on both sides of the l, and that is dealing with an overreaching executive. here in the senate, we just sent a strong message to president trump that under our constitutio

the house of representatives argument is with the white house. the only way to resolve a argument with the white house is to impeach the president of the united states. the idea to have a context citation of lewandowski, that all strikes me as ridiculous. and they should have -- if they think the president obstructed justice and why were they having lewandowski, to confirm what the mueller report said. no one has challenged a singular factual report. do you have any factual basis for the mueller report and they should impeach him or not impeach him. >> and by the way, corey lewandowksi is staying to -- trying to say he's covered under the executive privilege. he did not ever have a job at the white house and not part of the executive branch and not part of the administration and being used perspectively and the courts have never looked at the idea of saying because you may one day end up being the president of the united states you're covered. imagine if any one of -- say kamala harris's star said whatever congress we have now if you have preside

house officials who told him about the call and who say they were directed by the white house lawyers to remove the transcript from its proper server, correct? >> yes. this is actually one of the things i think is so damning about this document, that the whistle-blower is up front about the fact he does not have firsthand information, but he points to people who do have firsthand information. he is quite explicitly and directly and in some cases by name addressing investigators to individuals he believes has firsthand knowledge to related, contextual activity. certainly investigators are going to want to talk to this person. ultimately, as much as republicans are sort of saying this is just hearsay, second-hand information, the rejoinder is you're right, we need to bring in people with firsthand information, get them speaking with congressional investigators and have the white house agree to that process, participate in that process because it is such an incredibly serious not just allegation at this point but even from the most serious allegations in that whistle-blower complaint hav

a white house official confirms acting chief of staff mick mulvaney spoke with commerce secretary wilbur ross to have his department disavow a tweet from the birmingham office of the national weather service that contradicted the president. mr. trump told reporters he didn't instruct mulvaney to do that. >> no, i never did that. i never did that. that's a whole hoax by the fake news media. >> reporter: the acting head of noaa, which issued a statement backing away from that national weather service tweet, reassured forecasters they're not under attack. >> no one's job is under threat. not mine, not yours. the weather service team has my full support and the support to have the department. >> reporter: earlier in the day, the president marked the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and discussed his recent decision to host the taliban at camp david, a summit he scrapped. >> we had peace talks scheduled a few days ago. i called them off when i learned that they had killed a great american soldier from puerto

>> terse, we understand white house white house officials are being looing at this could come sout as soon as tomorrow. my enclosings report that the president weighed in on decide pd on his own he wanted to see the complaint released. we're not sure what form it comes in. whether we will see all of it. bup it's a curious change of events. the white house essentially blinked in all of this. if we see all of it. we're not sure if we will see all of it. but recall last week when the superior general for the intelligence community went on capitol hill talked to the house intelligence committee and essentially told the lawmakers we can't show you what's in this complaint. and so this is a major reversal for the white house no question about it. >> what about the release of the transcript of the president's call with the ukrainian president? and i'm not -- i mean, were there multiple calls? do we no? because the reporting for the "wall street journal" initially was that there were eight mentions of -- or eight efforts of mentioning focusing on biden. do we know if that was in one call. >>

the white house depend that mulvaney didn't have a response. however, sources say they are concerned about this strategy that he may be the fallguy for this. i do want to know they also say it doesn't mean he's on his out. this white house not in turmoil. the president might not want to see any more turnover here. however, he again, is on shaky ground. this goes to a larger concern we are hearing here at the white house from sources who say there is a lot of tension and a lot of interest what is going to be the strategy moving forward here. what is the administration going to do? what is the president going to do? we saw a little bit of insight into that yesterday. this is president trump's tweet storm. not surprisingly, of course. the president taking to twitter to make his direct appeal. you see here he is blaming democrats. he is blaming the whistle-blower. at one point he released a video saying that the whole thing was a scam. he paints himself as a victim, not something that is uncommon for president trump. you see that big one there. pre

we were terrified in the clinton white house that it would be a cascade. it was quick decision-making on the part of the staff and president on how to handle it. politics in prison of -- politics in prison of distraction had to stop now. there are moments like that. i'm not sure that crowd has that. >> i want to ask elise, somebody who has had experience with the national security apparatus, having served in that capacity on the communications side. we have an allegation from the president, he talked to the president of ukraine about joe and hunter biden. idea thato have this somehow the notes of this call, the transcript of this call, was intentionally buried so that people would not see it. not for security reasons, but political reasons. issue, the oldest cliche in the world is the cover up is worse than the crime. there are people implicated inside around the president if this is true. there another server. >> it is crazy that this is what it comes down to. after but her emails, not only do we have what happened this week we have ivanka using a , priva

joining me is white house correspondent for the "new york times" and a white house correspondent for the "daily mail". good to see you both. so michael you first. could the white house stand in the way of security clearances being granted to kurt volker so he might testify? >> i suppose technically they might but they probably won't. right? the administration's response to this seems to be more along the lines of the response that they've played out in other controversies and scandals and that's to try to demean and undermine the accusers rather than to stand in the way of something that is likely to happen. i mean i think they did try during the mueller investigation to keep some of their white house officials from testifying as well. they used executive privilege. that won't work for somebody like kurt volker. the thing that's different about this inquiry is that the subject matter that is at issue has already been out there. the conversation has already been revealed. what the democrats are trying to do is to build a case around it. the administration can't ultimately block the tr