to make sense of the impeachment proceedings. check it out. happy holidays all, and good night. good evening. thanks for joining us this hour. happy to have you with us. so bedo not know their names, but as of tonight, we do know that two white house officials, two employees of the white house office of management and budget resigned their jobs over the ukraine scan del for which president trump is facing impeachment. we have two weeks of hearings from the intelligence committee. just today, the judiciary committee announced they will start con veining public hearings of their own on the legal and constitutional basis for these impeachment

proceedings. even as the process is moving forward in that way, with the scheduled public hearings for the intelligence committee writing up their report now on what the investigation determined. they're planning to hand that over to the judiciary committee. articles of impeachment against the president and put those on the floor of the house for a vote. even as all of that is moving forward at pace right now, we're still getting more about how this whole thing went down. including inside the executive branch with these previously reported protest resignations, inside the white house office management and budget. the core allegation at the heart of all of this, is that the president pressured a foreign

government to conduct investigations into joe biden, investigations that would benefit president trump politically, what ever else is turned up in the impeachment inquiry, that's the core allegation that the house has made against the president. and that core allegation is uncontested at this point. if on nothing else, it looks like they will impeach him for that. you may remember the documentsed white house released which show president trump pressuring zelensky. he tells zelensky he has to do him a favor. he wants an investigation into joe biden and joe biden's son, the president says repeatedly that zelensky should talk to bill barr about this matter, and his own personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. that's him telling the ukrainian president talk to rudy, talk to

rudy about the stuff i want you to do. in an interview with a former fox news host, president trump denied he ever directed rudy giuliani to do anything concerning ukraine. he was asked in this interview what rudy giuliani was doing on his behalf, and the president responded, you have to ask that of rudy, he has other clients other than me. sod this part of it is going to be hilarious, subpoenas demanding information about mr. giuliani's business. planned or actual payments to him, subpoenas seeking that information have been flying out of the federal prosecutor's office with mr. giuliani in those kinds of crosshairs, president trump is pretending he

has no idea what mr. giuliani may have been doing in the ukraine. he repeatedly told the president of the ukraine he needs to talk to giuliani. now he's like, rudy who? where, i wonder who he was working for, he has lots of clients. i bet he has other clients getting help about joe biden. i think it's an underappreciated part of this impeachment scandal that in addition to what's going on in capitol hill there are active grand jury investigations, these criminal cases that butt up against the impeachment proceedings on capitol hill. that's an underappreciated part on how this is going.

we're going to get really really really expert advice on that part of this coming up a little later on in the show tonight. that's a little later in the slow. that's still to come tonight. this new news we're learning tonight is that the leverage, the part where president trump didn't just demand they help him with these allegations. he put a suspension on the aid to ukraine. that part of the scandal. the leverage part of the scandal. the withholding military aid from ukraine, we are learning tonight for the first time that that apparently caused two different officials in the office of management and budget. two different people who were involved in that process of trump holding up that military

aid it caused them to quit their jobs. the news comes from this deposition which was just released tonight, the testimony of mark sandy, a career staffer a military veteran, a veteran official at omb. this is where he breaks that news. he is asked, are you aware of anyone resigning or leaving omb under any circ um starnss, at least in part because of the manner omb was handling ukraine security assistance. i'm aware of one colleague who left in september. i'm always reluctant to speak about others departures. did you speak to this person about their departure? >> yes, i did. >> did that person express their

position with ukraine security assistance? >> yes. he expressed frustrations about not understanding the reason for the hold. that's my recollection. was this individual within the legal division? >> no. >> question. are you aware of any individual in the legal division resigning or leaving omb? at least in part because of ukraine security assistance? oh, yes, i am, meaning you're asking him about this person who left from the legal division. he's telling them about a whole other person who resigned too. oh, yeah, i know someone who quit the legal office too. what do you know about that, this person in the legal office expressed to me concerns about actions, vis-a-vis the impoundment control act. in the context of the ukraine security assistance yes, i am

aware of this person's frustrations in that area. question, okay, so this person who worked at omb legal expressed concerns and resigned from omb. does this person tell you they were leaving or resigning from omb because of their concerns or frustrations about the hold on ukraine security assistance? >> yes, in terms of how -- yes, in terms of the process. and then there's back and forth with the lawyer who's there with mark sandy, but eventually sandy comes back to the point and says, the individual who resigned from the legal office at omb, did note a disagreement on this topic. and this topic being the hold on ukraine security assistance? yes. just to be clear, what was the disagreement with? was the disagreement with the fact that omb was handling the

hold? i think the best way to characterize it would be a accidenting opinion vis-a-vis the control act provisions. in other words, whether what the president ordered is illegal or not. it's a basic idea, congress appropriated these military funds for ukraine, that meant the white house was legally obligated to disburse those funds. congress appropriates the money, white house is legally obligated to disburse them, the president ordered the white house to not do that. the funding should be held up. two people resigned over that. one person resigned because of

not understanding the reason for the hold that president trump put on the reason for the funds of ukraine. what the president ordered could have been illegal as the washington post notes tonight. current and former government officials have testified they were alarmed about the white house's decision to withhold the money from ukraine. mark sandy's testimony is the perfect conversation that the dispute became so intense at omb, it responded to these issues. he made it seem like he knew there was someone in the legal office who quit. they're asking for someone from the legal office, the guy

volunteers that someone else he knows quit over this as well. this is news tonight, again, we don't know the names of these officials who quit over the president holding up this aid. the questions of what the president was ordering up here, appear to have been widespread among officials who know how this sort of stuff is supposed to work. for example, this portion of mark sandy's deposition. he's asked about his own contact with an official whose name is redacted. she was expressing not only her own concerns, but the concerns of other staff. answer, that's correct. what were those concerns? the concerns were vis-a-vis the imt poundment control act. that appears to be a pentagon official speaking on behalf of herself and the staff right

after that another official whose name is redacted. i'm aware of one individual in the budgets review office who expressed concerns. were those concerns expressed to you? yes. question, okay, and who was that individual at brd? answer, name was redacted. what did that redacted person's name tell you? >> she made a general comment that reflected a concern about the apportionments. her control was vis-a-vis the impoundment control. once congress has allocated these funds, the president cannot hold them up. the president was trying to

withhold this aid to ukraine was an illegal act. after a trump appointee told mark sandy to sign the paperwork, officially putting a hold on the aid to ukraine, mark sandy says, on that day, i emphasize that that would raise a number of questions that we would need to address i advised that we would want to consult with our office of general concessions. at least two people in that office quit over what the president was doing. mark sandy himself doesn't quit over him sharing these concerns that this might be an illegal act by the president. but he is concerned that this might be illegal. and he says so to his boss, he wants to go to the lawyers on this. in this scandal, that will not do. the way this unspools and the way we can now see and didn't

know about before tonight? the president has ordered a holdup on the aid. the career staff that are supposed to execute an order like that, all raised red flags. you want us to do what now? isn't that illegal? the white house responds to that, we now know by taking the career staff member whose literally supposed to sign the paperwork, mark sandy, they took him off this job. this part of his job where he signs off. the money being dispersed or held up, that part of his job is taken away from him. a trump political appointee, mr. duffy can do is it instead. according to staffers, this is apparently unprecedented. circumstantially, this unprecedented act of putting a political appointee in charge of

holding up and putting in a former trump appointee. putting that guy in charge of disbursing the money instead of the technokrats that do that stuff, that replacement, taking the career guy out, putting the political guy in, that appears to have been an effort to seamlessly continue to carry out this order of the president to withhold the aid despite the expressed belief by the senior staff at the agency that those orders from the president were illegal. if you've got career staffers who are starting to skeek whether or not they're going to carry out this order, you may want to get them out of the way, put in someone who's not going to squeak. we now know that that was the order of events, and we now know there is an overt paper trail for all of it, that's the other thing that's new here tonight. question, did you hear of any

questions that inquiry being raised by omb about u crane security assistance at the end of june or end of july. >> yes. >> can you describe what you heard? >> the president had sign a media report, and he had questions about the assistance. >> when did you hear the president had had seen a media report. >> on june 19 snj. >> do you know what that media report was? >> i don't recall the specific article. >> who told you that the president had these concerns? or these questions? >> mike duffy. >> and that was a conversation you had with mr. duffy on june 19th? >> i believe it was an email. >> oh. >> what did mr. duffy say? >> the president had questions about this press report, he was seeking additional information. >> that's june 19th, and according to this deposition we got tonight. there is an email that proves

that the order to start questioning the military aid to the ukraine is from the president personally. the president has seen something in the media about the u.s. giving aid to ukraine, that sparks him having questions that about that aid. we don't know what he might have seen in the media. i can tell you there was a defense department press release, maybe i saw something in that release that bugged him. that's when the paper trail starts, the president expressing concerns about military aid to ukraine. then our witness mark sandy goes on vacation for a while, early july, comes back july 18th, as soon as he's back from vacation, big news in his office. his boss comes to talk to him, michael duffy comes to talk to him. and tells him since he's been on vacation, it's no longer just

the president asking questions, the president is ordering that aid to ukraine be stopped. and again, there's a paper trail. >> when i returned from vacation, i was told to withhold funding to the ukraine. who shared that with you? >> mr. duffy. he also expressed a desire to create an apportionment that would implement the hold. the president can't just hold the aid by din the of a verbal order. this is money appropriated by congress, he has to direct people to sign things. he does that through this guy, mike duffy. the career folks tell mike duffy, this could be illegal, this has to go through the lawyers. what happens next? mike duffy takes over this job himself. the career officials who are telling him this may be illegal,

won't be the ones who are ordered to do it? did you ever have any conversations with anyone other than mr. duffy, about the fact that this apportionment approval authority was being taken away from you? >> certainly with my staff. and what was their reaction. they were surprised and they were concerned. >> in your career at omb or otherwise. are you aware of any other political appointee being given the responsibility to authorize apportionments? >> no, age not aware. am i correct that never during your time at omb has that precise situation occurred? >> that's correct. >> so first, it's the president himself who orders the hold on military aid to the ukraine, while it is the president himself pressuring ukraine, that they need to give him these investigations he wants to help him for 2020. the president himself

questioning the aid to ukraine and ordering the hold. at least two officials resigned over it. multiple officials overtly expressed that the hold might be illegal, including telling the guy that -- the guy they were telling to signed the paperwork, to implement the hold. he's one of the people that told them, this may be an illegal thing you're asking me to do. i think we should bring this to the lawyers, in response, that guy was replaced by a trump apointee who said this was the president's wish, who ordered it done and had been advised by the career staffers this may be an illegal thing. and there is a paper trail for all of these pieces of the process. there's a million instances like this just in this one deposition that was released tonight. but just look at them? there's a million inning

substances in this testimony where they spell out the paper trail and how to find it. no wonder the white house is stonewalling the impeachment investigation and not handing over any paper. there's tons of paper, they really did do all of this by email and discuss it in realtime in records that were retained that are currently being held by the white house. i mean, this is jackpot testimony for investigators. look at this part of it, yes, so this july 12th email from mr. blair in the white house chief of staff's office, what did it say? it said that the president is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. what else was in the email? >> nothing that i recall. >> was any other country mentioned? >> no. >> any other aid of any sort? >> not to my recollection. >> any other topic at all in this email? >> no. >> to whom did mr. blair in the white house chief of staff ace office send this email? >> to mr. duffy.

>> who else was on the email? >> i don't recall anyone else. he then forwarded this email to you? >> correct. to the best of your knowledge, has that email been retained by omb? >> yes. >> was there anything else in this email string or was it that one communication you described? >> that was the only communication. >> okay. and what did you do with that email? >> i retained it. the email sent from the white house chief of staff office making clear that the direction for the hold on the military aid came directly from the president. yeah, they sent that to mike, mike forwarded it to me, i retained it, of course i did. >> that communication exists. it is retained. it is the proof in this case of who did it. what that sounds like to investigators is a dinner bell ringing. come and get it. they didn't just do it outloud. they typed it.

and those communications are retained. while the office of management and budget has refused to comply with the subpoena that they need to hand over all relevant documents as part of these impeachment proceedings. the other piece of big news that we just got is that somebody in congress is starting to get these documents. or at least they're starting to get some of them. because today the budget committee and the appropriations committee announced out of the blue, surprise that even though the impeachment committees are being stonewalled by the white house, those two committees, budgets and proepgszs, they have been getting stuff, they have received documents related to the white house holdup of military aid to ukraine. the committees that asked omb for these documents in september all related to the withholding of the military aid for ukraine, the agency ignored the

committee's october deadline to produce those documents, but in this surprise twist today the house budget committee announced they have started receiving some of those documents. they shared a summary of the findings with reporters. that summary says in part, after careful review of the materials providing the committees, the chairs have become concerned that the apportionment process has been abused to undermine congress's constitutional power of the purse. specifically, the time line of actions taken by omb suggests a pattern of abuse. number two, omb took the seemingly unprecedented step of stripping career officials in the normal role, and instead, vesting a political appointee with that authority, this is a

troubling deviation from longstanding procedures. the committee confirmed it has in its possession, documented related to mark sandy's assertion that president trump questioned ukraine's military aid as early as mid june, as soon as there were press reports derived from a pentagon press relea release, saying the military aid was on its way. mark sangdy first heard about the president's interest on june 19th, the day after the defense department announced the aid was going to the ukraine. he heard of it in the form of an email from his boss, mike duffy, expressing an interest in getting more information from the department of defense about this military aids that the president was now questioning. the budget committee says that specifically on june 19th, omb asserts in our documents that they first inquired, which means

part of what's being described here by mark sandy in this deposition, the president expressing concern, the president ordering withholding of the aid, the advice from career officials that that might be illegal, the career officials being replaced by the guy they told was going to be illegal. not only is that documented per mr. sandy's deposition, but at least some of those documents have made it to congress. not to the impeachment committees, but to these other committees. the committee notes at the end of its summary, omb's documentation to date confirms that the apportionment process has been misused. but i mean, we can read between the lines, we don't know what they've got. a committee source tells us tonight that the documents the committee has received arrived in sort of dribs and drabs over the past two months, which suggests that the white house doesn't have as tight a control

over their own behavior in this investigation as you might expect them to. the committee is not releasing these documents today. but this committee source tells us they might in future as part of the legislative process. as for why they got these documents, as for why o 34 b released documents to the budget committee, when they're refusing to give them to the impeachment committees, we have no idea how many documents they let out, what those documents show, their overall relevance to the impeachment broegs. that's a question for the budget committee to answer at this point, at least i think it is, it looks like some of what they're really looks for some of the damning stuff appears to be squeaking out. appears to be getting out of what is supposed to be a locked up white house on this issue. i have just the person to check this out with next. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance,

so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

(employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. well, here's to first dates! you look amazing. and you look amazingly comfortable. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck... that's when you know, it's half-washed. try downy fabric conditioner. unlike detergent alone, downy helps prevent stretching

by conditioning and smoothing fibers, so clothes look newer, longer. downy and it's done. 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. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy...

the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. a few hours ago, we got this, the testimony of mark

sandy. at least two officials at omb appear to have resigned in protest against the president ordering a hold on military aid to ukraine. that's new, we did not know that before we got this testimony tonight. the documents have been handed over to congress, despite the white house putting a total lockdown on cooperation. the documents they got, according to the chairs of those two committees show a pattern of abuse. i am surprised that your committee has these omb documents, given the fact that they are germane to the impeachment proceedings, and the

white house seems to have indicated they're not handing over anything that may be germane to those proceedings. how did your committee get them? >> it's the normal process of oversight. where we request information from agencies of government, what's not so clear is why in this case these particular documents have been supplied, why they were delivered to us. there are people there still willing to do their job, notwithstanding orders that they see as being unlawful from the president of the united states. these are public documents that ought to be in the public domain. and i know the two chairs of our committees, i sit on the budget committee, will make the right decision at the right time, and assure the american public has access to this information. >> we have a description of what is in some of these documents from the committee chairs. we can all see because of the way this fits into the story

line around the impeachment and the other reporting, we can see how germane they are. can we see if they could be provided to the impeachment inquiry, which seems to be moving over to the folks in judiciary. >> i do think that ultimately they will be, because the information that we are receiving is consistent with everything else that we've been hearing from the white houses that have appeared before the intelligence committee from other reports that are coming through. every bit of fact evidence, whether it's direct testimony by both witnesses we called or that the republican minority wanted to have come before the intelligence committee, now these documents confirm the

whole story. that the president was directing. that the president wanted to exchange this military aid for political help in going after one of his opponents. the fact that not only was he willing to do that, he was willing to violate u.s. law in order to do so. you know, the impoundment control act has a specific procedure for the president to use if he thinks there's a reason to withhold money, he's supposed to notify congress and congress has the authority to concur with him. if they don't concur, the money has to be delivered. this isn't some sort of process he can make up as he goes along this is a serious breach of american law. it's a bit of evidence that these republicans seem so willing to overlook, that it's very damning. >> congressman dan kilde of

michigan, thank you for being here tonight. this is an unexpected development in this story. thanks for helping us to understand it. >> thank you, rachel. >> much more ahead tonight, thank you. thank you. wayfair's biggest black friday blowout ever is now on. yes! score unbelievable savings. like living room up to 70% off. storage solutions from $9.99. and area rugs up to 80% off. plus, tons of limited-time mystery flash deals. and free shipping on everything when you shop from thanksgiving through cyber monday. and we're just getting warmed up. our black friday blowout

is happening now through december first. shop the event of the season, only at wayfair.com. (vo) the flock blindly flying south for the winter. they never stray from their predetermined path. but this season, a more thrilling journey is calling. defy the laws of human nature. at the season of audi sales event. (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. my lady! those darn seatbelts got me all crumpled up. that's ok! hey, guys! hi mrs. patterson...

wrinkles send the wrong message. sorry. help prevent them before they start with new downy wrinkleguard. that's better. so you won't get caught with wrinkles again. 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.

we got this weird statement from the justice department last month, a meeting they had with rudy giuliani, the justice department put out a statement that said, yes, we met with him, but we had no idea what he was

involved with when we met with him and we don't want to talk about it. several weeks ago, the head of the justice department's criminal division met with mr. giuliani to discuss a bribery case in which he and other attorneys were representing the defendants. the meeting took place before the case in manhattan, with trying to unlawfully influence politicians. here was the statement that doj put out that sunday. when fraud section lawyers met with mr. giuliani, they were not aware of any investigation of mr. juligiuliani's associates ie southern district of new york, they would not have met with him had they known. at the time, nobody knew what that meeting was or who this was who was facing bribery charges, who giuliani got into the justice department.

nobody knew what that meeting was about, who that meeting was about, now we know. now we knee. >> according to the washington post tonight, rudy giuliani was at the justice department today interceding on behalf of a venezuelan billionaire in a billion dollar bribery and money laundering case. giuliani had just come back from a trip from spain where he stayed at this billionaire's lavish estate on the grounds of an ancient castle, once used by spanish royalty. this is the same castle the miami herald reports that the billionaire bought with his windfall from this alleged money laundering scheme in venezuela. rudy stayed at the guy's spanish castle, then he came back to the u.s. and met with the justice department to try to get the castle guy out of any potential u.s. federal charges he may be otherwise facing for laundering billions of dollars. no wonder the justice department

is like, we did not know what was going on with rudy when we met with him -- had we known, this is the second time just this week we've had reporting about rudy giuliani doing that, allegedly going to billionaires, facing serious criminal scrutiny in the united states, and offering those billionaires they can hip out. there's a guy with the spanish castle we learned about today, and according to some bombshell reporting in the new york times yesterday, there's also dmitri fertash who is a subject of my new book, blowout. a ukrainian oligarch who is an upper echelon associate of russian organized crime. rudy giuliani offered him a little little help with his problems with the doj, if he would give mr. giuliani help in ukraine. lev and egor are going to be

back in court monday in new york. we may learn more about the trajectory of the case against them. a whole bunch of people have been served with subpoenas for information related to rudy giuliani and his company, and according to reuters reporting, related to potential payments to mr. giuliani. the impeachment proceeding is one thing on capitol hill, but there are also these parallel criminal cases. which are related to and happening simultaneous to impeachment. as the impeachment proceedings steam ahead, are these criminal cases likely to produce more information. are there any worries about the ways in which they may interintersect or interact with each other. having to do with congressional immunity. lev's lawyer wants some sort of congressional immunity for his client. that's why he offers all sorts of damning sounding things, if council just brought him up to capitol hill. just how serious are these

criminal cases as far as the legal jeopardy their targets are in? hold that thought, stay with us. . 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. ♪ who doesn't love a deal? i do. check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. my skin hurt, i felt gross. but then i started cosentyx and i haven't really had to think about it. real people with psoriasis... look and feel better with cosentyx.

don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. [sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. alice loves the smell of gain so much, she wished it came in a fabric softener too. [throat clears] say hello to your fairy godmother, alice. oh and look they got gain scent beads and dryer sheets too! and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier.

hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby!

joining us now here on set is andrew wiseman, the head of the criminal fraud section at the department of justice, he was a leading member, mr. wiseman, it's an honor to meet you. thank you for being here. >> honor to meat you. >> i have been sort of watching the impeachment proceedings with one eye on the courts. it seems to me like the indictments and what is reported to be an ongoing criminal investigation of mr. juligiulia alongside them, those appear to be parallel and abutting cases to what we're seeing on capitol hill. do you see it that way as well. >> what you just covered about the peter carr announcement regarding the fraud section. very unusual because what it signals is, they're clearly is an investigation into rudy giuliani, normally, just because

a lawyer has clients who get indicted doesn't mean that you say, i'm not going to meet with the lawyer any more. >> presumably most of the lawyers you meet with have clients who have been indicted? >> exactly. we now know there is an investigation and one of the ways it could be -- there could be a real overlap is -- and this is speculation, we don't know what the south earn district is doing, one way you could do that is if you have a case on bribery, involving the president. well, the president under the doj policy cannot be indicted while he is in office, that does not apply to anyone else who is involved. we know rudy giuliani was involved not just from a number of witnesses, you have rudy giuliani in the new york times in march touting that he is going to be going to ukraine precisely because he wanted to drum up business in terms of having them investigate the 2016 election. so you could have the southern

district investigating him for bribery. one of the results of that could be, if i were doing that, you want documents, one of the things that's remarkable about what's happened so far, you have congress getting so far with a minimal number of documents, which is really unusual and difficult to do in an investigation. usually that's one of the first things you start with, because that's what you use to refresh witnesses or for witnesses who are less than candid you confront them and say what you're telling us is not consistent. we know from a whole series of reporting that there are documents out there. the southern district has grand jury subpoena power. they can just get the documents. >> in terms of the resistance by the white house in particular to handing over documents to congressional subpoenas, if they chose to resist grand jury subpoenas in the same way, would it their resistance be evident to us, would it play out in the

courts in the same way? would it be the subject of court orders? >> that is a great question. there are two things about that, it would not be public. the enforcement of a grand jury subpoena is something that happens in secret, grand jury proceedings are secret, so the enforcement process is secret. >> although, those who receive a grand jury subpoena are allowed to discuss it publicly? >> yes. you could potentially learn about it that way. presumably if you're getting a grand jury subpoena and you're the state department working for the white house, you may not have an incentive to say anything, but there's something on the plus side. we may not know if that's happening, it happens very quickly, the law in terms of enforcement of grand jury subpoenas, it can happen especially in the second circuit, which is where the southern district of new york e circuit, that can happen in days. there's sort of concern that you're hearing about we don't want to go down this rabbit hole

because it can take months and months. my experience with grand jury litigation is you can have a decision from a district court judge within a matter of 24 hours and you can be in the second circuit on appeal the following week and have a decision. they're very used to proceeding quickly. >> to the extent these criminal proceedings with parallel and related, those will move faster. there's more i want to ask you. our guest is andrew weissman. stay with us. our guest is andrew weissman stay with us order up. fries on the side. right where i like 'em. don't forget the grease fire. burn, baby -- wait, what? -[ alarm beeping ] -i said grease fire. what are you doing on the counter? when owning a small business gets real... sorry. can i get a to-go box? ...progressive helps protect what you built -with customizable coverage. -aah!

hi. maria ramirez! mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. of millions of americans during mom andthe recession.mirez!!! so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank

with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. non-gmo, made with naturally sundown vitamins are all sourced colors and flavors and are gluten & dairy free. they're all clean. all the time. even if sometimes we're not. sundown vitamins. all clean. all the time. when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really?

yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

joining us once again is andrew weissman, former head of the criminal section of the justice department. thank you again. i just wanted to ask your take as a prosecutor and with the experience that you have, i feel like the evidence that we have collected in the impeachment proceeding and that we've seen evolve in public reporting alongside it not only all points in the same direction, it also keeps piling up. mr. sandy's deposition says not only did people resign in protest over what the president was doing withholding that military aid but it did go down the way we thought it did and there's a paper trail. i'm not a lawyer. as a layman am i being naive? >> each piece keeps fitting together and getting deeper and deeper. when i was a baby prosecutor -- >> you prosecuted babies? that's terrible. >> i used to come in to my boss

and say look what i just found. i kept coming in with new pieces of evidence. my boss looked at me and said why are you so surprised? they're guilty. so when you continue investigating somebody where the story is clear this is what they did, what we're seeing is each of these pieces is confirming a really obvious story. there is no counter narrative. there is no one who has actually testified, oh, don't worry, there was no linkage, don't worry this isn't happen. you have people who are not willing to come in and testify who are saying that, but everybody who has actually come in and walked with their feet and sat down and taken an oath and sworn to tell the truth has come in and every piece fits. and when every piece fits, there's one reason for that. >> one last question for you on this. if as you mention if justice department policy precludes the indictment of a president, but there are other people who were involved in this and it was criminal behavior, if it was

bribery or other serious violations of criminal statute, do you have faith sitting here today that the justice department, this justice department under william barr would see to it that people other than the president were charged for those crimes? >> i have faith that there are career prosecutors who will seek to do that. i can't say that i know that it h g will get approved the deputy attorney general and the attorney general have the ultimate say. >> will we the public ever have visibility into that? >> you could end up seeing what someone taught me years ago which is if there's something you really can't stomach, you have to be prepared to resign. one sign of that would be if you see career prosecutors resigning, that would be a sign of it. >> it would be helpful if they said why they were resigning. >> it would be. >> sir, it's an honor. sir, it'. with this key to the city.

[ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i suff...for so long.asis... it was kind of a shock after i started cosentyx... ...i wasn't covered anymore. i'm not constantly thinking about it. i'm still clear five years now. see me. cosentyx works fast to give you clear skin that can last. real people with psoriasis... ...look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting...

...get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms,... ...if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop... ...or worsen... ...of if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i look and feel so much better. see me. ask your dermatologist if cosentyx could help you move past the pain of psoriasis.

that does it for us tonight. we will see you on monday. >> good evening and welcome to a special thanksgiving holiday edition of "the last word." tonight we are less than a year away from the 2020 presidential election. a year ago voters delivered a strong message to republicans and the trump presidency in the congressional elections with the democrats winning the house by the largest midterm margin of victory since the impeachment investigation of richard nixon forced him to resign the presidency in 1974. and now another republican president is the subject of a fast-moving impeachment investigation.