Everything is on the up and up, if this was a peft call, you would want even to go and tell your story and the fact they havent done so to me is incredibly telling. Mark, garrett, who i hope is getting a chance to read through these 17 pages of the summary, the preface to the report. Ive asked you this before. Listen, if theres no wrong doing and perry or mulvaney wanted to fund the president , republicans, you got your shot to call some people. Over to katy tur. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Were following Breaking News at this hour. The Intelligence Committee has just released its report on the impeachment inquiry. House democrats say in no Uncertain Terms the president personally solicit Election Interference from a foreign governmecountry, quote, the evi overwhelming and so, too, is the evidence of his obstruction of congress. Joining me now is garrett and
jake. Also with us, former intel staffer, mika. Everybody, welcome. Garrett, you were just talking with stephanie and al
does at&t know what it is? is it unusual to list negative 1 as a phone number and not a place? the report here, unidentified or anonymous number inside the white house makes it sound important. i don t read thus far, and i haven t fipished. we know it s inside the white house? i ve seen it referred to as negative 1 as a white house number! okay. of import. i have not seen, just looking. yeah, i have not seen it identified as who it belongs to. obviously in an investigation like this, people say oh, could that be the president. that is sometimes a potential inference. this report in the footnotes i ve read is not saying that to date. let s bring in jonathan allen. i know you ve been reporting on kamala harris up until just now, but you have more information on rudy giuliani. it s interesting, you go through this r report, his name is in here more than 500 times. this clearly shows and this is a news bombshell by the way, this
commander-in-chief of the united states while his alleged abuse of foreign policy remains in investigation of an impeachment probe. in fairness to any president, whether you think this one abused the officeis or not, thi is his job n until it s not and he s out there conducting foreign policy. it s a fascinating moment that we saw there. we continue to have fascinating split screens when he s overseas or sitting next to a head of state where he s embroiled in a scandal or controversy and is asked about it and responds. this a has been a continuous the throughout his presidency. that, looking to at the story that the white house has to respond to, and it was i would say rhysable which is a fancy word for laughable, that they said this exhaustive report with new evidence reads like a w blogger. it doesn t. in a world of tweets and instant hot takes and donald trump s foamen eighting i don t know if you can describe it if you haven t read
to a lot of democrats who look at the evidence and say it seems bad, but not as cut and dry as they d like it to be, not that they doubt it, but as the public might want it to be, obstruction is quite cut and dry, they say. they say the administration didn t make people available. they didn t send documents that they believed should be available and thus, they were not r participating in a lawful investigation. this administration has at times bristled many times. congress has a role here and the administration did not throughout the process, acknowledge that and democrats are at this point ringing them up on that and remember b, this happened under nixon as well. this is not a foreign idea. the administration must under most circumstances, participate. here, they did not and they might see the consequences for that. jake, there s also another portion. democrats seem to be questioning whether sondland was telling the
political appointees. his people over there and continued to be through very recently until some of those folks started dropping out of the investigation. anything he was involved in from the white house perspective, anything in the political shop, those things, there s a big connective tissue there. we obviously don t know who was on the other end of those calls, if those were political numbers, you can bet those were people connected to mulvaney. he stood at the white house press podium and press briefing room and said yes, this was a quid pro quo. yes, the president wanted those gass. so what, we do it all the time. he said this in front of reporters. to reporters and seemed to shrug it off. he later tried to walk it back and say that s not what he said, but again, he was on camera saying it so presumably, if congressal democrats were able to get him in front of the them, they would be able to ask him