I really mean it when i say i could talk to these friends for another hour. My thanks to all of them, and mostly to you for watching. Chuck todd with mtp daily starts now. Welcome to tuesday. It is meet the press daily. Good evening. Im chuck todd in washington where another round of potential bombshell testimony as the president and his allies once again struggle to defend him as democrats unveil their official road map for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. This afternoon the house laid out a resolution that will lay out the rules and procedures that will govern the next phase
that will include public hearings and the official rollout of the impeachment. It will include an ability for President Trump to have attorneys around. Meanwhile, there was more potentially explosive testimony in the investigation itself from Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. He is a purple heart recipient, a National Security official who was in on the infamous phone call with the ukraine president
These events. By obligation, you mean your legal obligation or did you mean something bigger . Both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. Your moral obligation. I actually want to present an alternative theory. Your family came here escaping the holocaust via uruguay. Your parents moved, lucy and later you, here. Youve done that american Success Story through dint of hard work and innovation, good idea, a knack for hiring the right people and some look, youve built up considerable, successful business, one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. They came here because they knew that it was here that they could
have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed. No doubt on some level, youre grateful and its created a sense of patriotism in you. Is that fair to say . Very fair. Why, sir, with your courage to come before us, does that same standard not apply to mr. Mulvaney, mr. Duffy, mr. Pompeo, mr.
senator ron johnson and i also shared my concern with the ukrainians. so much for the ukrainians didn t know. you can t have a quid pro quo unless the ukrainians know, and you ve testified today, ambassador, the ukrainians knew. you further testified. mr. giuliani emphasize that the president wanted a public statement from president zelensky committing ukraine to look into corruption issues. mr. giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election, including the dnc server and burisma as to topics of importance to the president. in reference to the july 10 meeting at the white house which you attended with an investor bolton and others and the ukrainian delegation, you said i recall mentioning the
when he asked you about investigations which we agree now means the bidens, we just did this 30 seconds ago. it s pretty simple, isn t it? i m having trouble why you can t just say when he asked about investigations, i assumed he meant the company. who would benefit from an investigation of the bidens? there s two different questions. i m asking one. i assumed president trump would benefit. there we have it! see? didn t hurt a bit, did it? didn t hurt a bit. let me ask you. mr. maloney, i ve been very forthright and i resent what you re trying to do. fair enough. you ve been very forthright. this is your third try to do so. it didn t work so well the first time. we had a declaration come in. now we are here a third time we have a doozy of a statement from you this morning. there s a bunch of stuff you don t recall.
focus, to get the meeting. that was shared by the callings that i mentioned, correct? correct. incredibly urgent, ambassador taylor describes going to the front where ukrainians were dying in the don donbass. and you shared ambassador taylor s concern? i did. your forthright testimony, you testified, the benefit of hindsight because you couldn t piece it together. giuliani knew in real time what you were trying to figure out if you went along. is that a fair statement. i think so. you testified that you acted on the orders of the president. you acting on his orders. and you said quite explicitly there was a quid pro quo