Crossing from the New York Times which is reporting at this hour that trump was briefed by white house lawyers about the whistleblower complaint in late august and the lawyers at that time told him they were trying to figure out if they had to give the whistleblower complaint to congress. They were trying to avoid doing that. Of course, this is crucial. Youre talking about late aug ah t august that the president of the United States finds out about the whistleblower and he only released that military aid after congress announced that it was opening investigation into his handling of that ukrainian aid. Maggie haberman of the New York Times, i dont think theyve had time to get through all of it as it was just crossing and the timing was significant as to what you are reporting tonight. What more can you tell us . Sure, erin. Its significant because this briefing by the white House Counsel and John Eisenberg who is the main lawyer for the National Security council took place at the end of august roughly two weeks before the freeze on that aid was lifted. So we know that the president was aware that there had been this whistleblower complaint filed against him in connection with his actions regarding ukraine both in terms of this phone call that he had with president zelensky of ukraine on july 25th and the fact that the aid was frozen and those are the key details in the whistleblower complaint and he was aware of it at the time when he reversed himself. And he was aware of the whistleblower complaint and aware that they were trying to avoid this ever ending up with congress which, of course, it did, and then maggie, we know the time line here is two days after congress, and the president s aware congress is opening an investigation into what happened. Thats when he finally releases the aid. You also point out that this is very significant in terms of what the president was thinking at the time he told Gordon Sondland no quid pro quo. Explain what you mean. Sure. To your point about congress, this briefing took place at a moment when sipiloni and eisenberg were arguing they didnt think they could have the whistleblower complaint ask they were covered by executive privilege and they were seeking an opinion from the Justice Departments legal office and the Justice Department said they didnt have to share it and they didnt, but to your point, congress ended up finding out anyway, but he found out about this complaint existing prior to a conversation that Gordon Sondland testified to congress that he had with the president about questions about this aid being withheld and the president said to sondland theres no quid pro quo. Thats according to sondlands testimony. Thats very specific language and that was language that was not part of the public discussion around this aid being withheld at that time when they had this conversation in the beginning of september. Very crucial because as you point out, maggie, now knowing that he knew about the whistleblower complaint, he knew the entire concept and the entire thing was a quid pro quo. The fact that he introduces it thats right. He knew somebody was saying that or knew that that was at least our understanding of it, based on what he was briefed on that that was part of the conversation. I should note here that the white house declined to comment on this briefing or on the timing of it. And what else, maggie, do you think could be significant here. What this means for what the president was thinking and his use of the word quid pro quo and the way he handled Gordon Sondland. All of that is very crucial. What else do you think could be the implications of now knowing of what the president knew when he knew it. I think anything we can pinpoint as to what the president s mindset was, erin, when he decided to free up this aid, i think, is important. I think, again, we still dont know exactly what pat sipiloni and what eisenberg told the president about this aid and we may never know because those are conversations that the white house are going to argue are protected about executive priviledge and weve seen it play out repeatedly in discussions that the president had with the previous white House Counsel mcgahn, so i dont expect it to be different. It underscores that the president was aware of what was going on. Were not saying he knew the whistleblowers name at the time. None of our reporting has indicated that he was told who it was, but he was just told that this complaint existed and the fact that he knew of that as he took actions related to people learning about this matter Going Forward is crucial. Its also, again, vital. Weve known this, but its worth underscoring the efforts the white house took to try to Keep Congress from finding out about this is going to be a key part of this inquiry as it goes forward. Absolutely. Certainly adding into the questions they had an obstruction. Maggie, thank you very much. Maggie, the breaking of this story. Lets go to democratic congresswoman Brenda Lawrence who sits on the committee. You heard maggie going through some of the reporting there. Does this change anything now that you know when the president became aware of the whistleblower complaint that it was prior to that conversation with Gordon Sondland. It appears in which he said no quid pro quo. Certainly it was prior to his decision to release the aid. Well, it has been so magical the proceedings for impeachment and the hearing is that someone says its like an onion, you keep peeling away layer after layer and this is solidifying that the president of the United States is not a truthful person that the president of the United States was manipulating his his office and manipulating aid to another country, and it was only until he felt that he was being exposed that he actually stepped up and actually released the funds. This is very incriminating and this is a time for us to understand that history must reflect that we held this president accountable. In terms of what this means for congress, maggie just alluded to obviously the point here, the context in which the president found out was white house lawyers were trying to prevent this whistleblower report from ever getting in the hands of congress. Thats what they were trying to do. Do you think that in and of itself is the possibility of obstruction. Thats obstruction. Absolutely. Its obstruction and its one of the articles of impeachment that will be on the table and the president has, you know, from denying his staff to speak and thank goodness that we have judges who are true interpreters of the law. The from is not a king. The president cannot have subjects and those who serve the people and so this is just it just keeps piling on and this is troubling because so often people will say that the president is not very smart. It shows that he was manipulating. He was strategic in his obstruction, and that he just blatantly lies and use that as a as a base for his deflections of what he does. Now, you do talk about this as a moment of history, congresswoman and you do make some comments that are getting a lot of attention about this issue of impeachment and what to do here. Here is part of what you said about President Trump. Let me just play it so viewers can hear it. We are so close to an election. I will tell you sitting here knowing how divided this country is, i dont see the value of taking him out of office, but i do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable. . Wow. I want it on the record that the house of representatives did their job. I want him censured and you dont see the value of taking him out of office, referring to President Trump. What exactly do you mean by this, congresswoman . So i was asked about it is senate and what is the senate going to do after we vote for impeachment. I have been on the record since 2017 and i was one of the first to sign on to representative greens resolution for impeachment. I have not waivered from that, but the discussion was will the republicans in the senate go through and impeach the president. There seems to be no giving in that. Right. But the thing that keeps me awake and troubles me and what i was talking about is that there is actually a movement to resolve the president of any wrongdoing. We cannot afford that to happen. You want the house to impeach and but in the senate instead of possibly absolving him, youd rather they not vote on remove or not remove. Yes. They vote to censor him in the senate. I mean, thats what youre saying . Because privately yes. Privately, the republicans are saying yes, its not right. Hes done something wrong, but im its just not impeachable. We have to put a marker down so im going to do my job in the house and when it gets to the senate and this is a way for history to reflect that this president and any president from now on, this is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it and we will say as the checks and balances in our government that we did our job and that was my my call to the republicans in the senate. Certainly, i think you made it clear here and i appreciate your time, congresswoman. Thanks as always. Thank you so much. Out front next. Breaking news. Democrats are releasing two new impeachment transcripts weve never seen before and were finding out tonight that before anyone in congress or the American Public knew anything about all of this, somebody actually resigned because they thought what they were asking what they were being asked to do was wrong. Plus the president s former National Security adviser john bolton warning American Security is under attack from within. So why is he defending it . Hes not working for the president anymore and why wont he speak out and President Trump likes to claim this. We just did a great thing in syria. The great thing that happened in syria. So what really happened in syria on the ground . Well, were there and a story you will see only out front. . Things happen. And sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. But at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with Retirement Planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. Because when youre with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, theres nothing to stop you from moving forward. My bladder leak underwear. Orried someone might see is clear, so, i switched. To always discreet boutique. Its shapehugging threads smooth out the back. So it fits better than depend. And no one notices. Always discreet. [sneeare you ok . Fles] yah, its just a cold. Its 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. Thlook at all this ink no more bit comes with. Es. Big ink tanks. Lots of ink. No more cartridges. Incredible amount of ink. The epson ecotank. Just fill and chill. Itintroducing the new braava jet m6 robot mop. With an adjustable Precision Jet spray and advanced pad system braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. Braava jet. Only from irobot. a stampede unleashed 55 years ago. Built for freedom, power and rebellion. And just when you think you know where theyre going. They do something unexpected. Something that moves us all forward and holds nothing back. The allelectric mustang mache. The newest member of the family. Breaking news. The New York Times reporting that President Trump knew about the whistleblower complaint when he finally released the aid to ukraine. This also means from the time line of when he learned about the whistleblower complaint which is late august, when he told his Eu AmbassadorGordon Sondland that there was no quid pro quo he knew there was a whistleblower complaint of doing exactly that. Nia Malika Henderson and ryan goodman, former special counsel to the defense department. Ryan, how significant is this . Obviously, we knew there was a congressional investigation that was under way two days before the aid was released and thats public. We know that and that was very damning, but this puts the the president knowing about the whistleblower complaint in late august, weeks before. Why he decides to restore the aid because hes being discovered. The whistleblower complaint in its allegations included the fact that the aid had been suspended and then raised this question is that related so when President Trump restores the aid you might think its because hes been discovered. As Maggie Haberman was saying he found out about it from his lawyers in the context that they were trying to prevent congress from finding out about it. So he knows theres this complaint, but when he has this conversation with Gordon Sondland, in which he says no quid pro quo, he knows about the complaint, but he thinks he can keep the complaint quiet. Thats right. Its interesting that the New York Times report had the report from John Eisenberg, midaugust, august 14th hes on the phone with the cia general counsel calling the Justice Department with basically what the counsel thought was a criminal referral with the allegations that were raised and thats middle august and that was the New York Times before and theyve updated that tonight. If that lawyer goes before the Justice Department in middle august and he did alert the president in late august to the whistleblower complaint it raises another specter which is did the president know that as well, that a referral had been made to the Justice Department. That would be another reason why he would want to restore the aid until ambassador sondland, no quid pro quo. Try to make the whole thing go away. Nia, when you hear the name of that lawyer, obviously, this is also the lawyer that that vindman, right . Had approached twice with concerns about the president s dealings with ukraine. So in other words, this lawyer had been aware since late june, right, at least that there were serious issues here and concerns . He knew as much as anyone. Yeah. I think thats right. And what you get, right . When you put all of the testimony together and you put this piece of the puzzle in from the New York Times is that people in real time knew about this and were complaining about it and concerned about it. Bolton, of course, telling fiona hill to raise her concerns about some of this to eisenberg and eisenberg hearing complaints from both vindman as another witness whose name escapes me right now, but thats what you get, and if youre a democrat you know this will happen and there will be more information that comes out about what was going on from reporters and from people just digging into this. You dont necessarily have to wait on john bolton who likes to flirt on twitter on this, but youre going to get some more information if this thing keeps going on as we saw from maggies reporting in the New York Times. The context here as nia perfectly pointed out. People knew about this in real time and vindman, fiona hill knew about, were talking to the lawyers and john bolton told people to talk to the lawyers. Were finding out tonight and mark sandy, the Top White House budget official, he was at the omb is the one who holds the aid and would release the aid. Somebody asked him behind closed doors in the intelligence xhisht committee, quote, are you aware of anybody leaving omb in part by the security assistance, the answer, oh, yes, i am. I mean, so people were actually somebody at least at least one person resigned over this. It sounds like all of the alarm bells were going off and it wasnt people speaking to their other policy colleagues. They were speaking to the lawyers and they knew this was a serious legal problem and its notable that the person who resigns in the omb is in the Legal Division and according to sandy is because they were concerned about the impoundment act which means you need to spend the money and the defense Department Said the white house broke through one of the deadlines to spend the money so it makes complete sense that at a certain people have their breaking points, as well. Which to be clear, the reason there are laws is because congress authorized the money. Its not just because you dont spend it because youre the president and its not the way it votes. Its illegal and a separation of powers. Ni a it is incredible what were learning and just the sheer number of people who knew and we were hit with this before where multiple people spoke to the whistleblower, but this new reporting here from the New York Times makes it even clearer that the counsel here, white House Counsel for National Security was well aware that this was a tsunami about to hit. Thats right. And you see from the white houses notion of maybe they can get in front of the tsunami, right . Maybe they can prevent this whistleblower complaint from going to congress because it is so damning and then you have the president telling Gordon Sondland, listen, theres no quid pro quo. Hes trying to himself get in front of this story and why would he offer this informatio