Tonight. Yeah, the fact that he said he made some suggestions in terms of improving that transcript and some of them were taken and some of them were not is at least according to this New York Times reporting today about his testimony, that is just ned price is going to join us in a minute, and its the value of having staff here. He has restudied the transcript of the phone call tonight, the white house transcript, as we all have. And hes found something in it that indicates real corroboration for what the colonel testified to today. Were going to get to that in the next hour. Thank you, rachel. Well, tomorrow the House Rules Committee will vote on a resolution establishing the rules for public hearings in the impeachment investigation of donald trump, and they are rules like we have never seen before because these rules anticipate obstructionist tactics by the president and by the president s lawyers. And these rules provide very specific, very immediate penalties that the president s lawyers will suffer right there on the spot, in the hearing room if they try to obstruct the impeachment investigation. Well take a close look at those new rules at the end of this hour. And we now know that the transcript is not accurate. The transcript that the white house released about the president s phone call with the president of ukraine is not accurate. Army Lieutenant ColonelAlexander Vindman told the impeachment investigating committees today according to a report in the New York Times tonight that the white house transcript of a july call between President Trump and ukraines president omitted crucial words and phrases and that his attempts to restore them failed. According to three people familiar with the testimony. Colonel vindman testified that one of the ellipses in the rough transcript of the phone call that eliminated yet another reference to joe biden in that phone call. That ellipsis was not a pause as some have suggested, including some on this program have suggested that indicated a pause in the investigation. Colonel vindman is saying, no, that ellipsis covered up yet another reference to joe biden that donald trump actually did deliver in that phone call. The transcript released by the white house shows the president saying to the president of ukraine, the other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens 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 would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you you can look into it and theres the ellipsis right there, dot, dot, dot. It sounds horrible to me. Today colonel vindman in the longest testimony yet delivered to the investigating committees, 10 1 2 hours, told the committees that that ellipsis covers the space where donald trump said there are tapes of joe biden. The New York Times reporting tonight suggests that the president might have been referring to videotape of joe biden in 2018 in a Panel Discussion at the council on foreign relations. Describing how the Obama Administration dealt with ukraine and attempted to get ukraine to strengthen its investigation and prosecution of corruption. Leading off our discussion tonight is democratic congressman Shawn Patrick maloney of new york, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and he attended colonel vindmans deposition today. And also ned price, of the National Security council in the Obama Administration. An msnbc contributor. And Edward Mcmullen is with us, he served as a Senior Adviser to the House Foreign Affairs committee and as chief policy director for the House Republican conference. Hes the cofounder of standup republican. Congressman maloney, let me start with you. The New York Times reporting tonight that turns out the white house transcript of the president s phone call is not accurate. Is there anything more you can add to that for us . Well, you put me in a tough spot. I cant reveal the specifics of the testimony today. Its obviously been a concern of many of us that, i worked in the white house, i was the white house staff secretary, i spent three years in the west wing. Ive seen a lot of these memos. The nature of that product, how its developed, its not a transcript, its not an electronic recording, obviously. And so there was always going to be some question about the preciseness of that, but i think i wouldnt lose the forest for the trees, if i can make the larger point. Which is that the president s conduct is made clear by the call memorandum and it is devastating. And that conduct has been further corroborated and confessed to by the white house chief of staff. And all the evidence that has come out in the Public Domain has further corroborated the whistleblower complaint. In other words, there is already significant undisputed evidence of what the president did, and its very damning. The paragraph about joe biden in that transcript as you say contains all the evidence you are looking for as an investigator. And so its fascinating to see that line dropped out of it because as crucial as it is its yet another reference to joe biden. It doesnt seem to add or subtract from the general content of that paragraph. Again, im not going to comment on what was discussed in testimony. In terms of the New York Times report, if accurate it obviously layers a bit whats already in the rest of the call memorandum. In other words, the conduct is the conduct. It has been admitted to, it has been corroborated. I think theres really no serious person who can dispute what occurred on that call, and the real important question is what was intended by what the president was saying, that has also come into focus. And its very damaging to the president. But, look, we want to most accurate record and thats why were calling a witness like colonel vindman, a decorated army colonel, served his country heroically in iraq, earned a purple heart and this was the first witness who was on the call. And who by the way is a legacy ukrainian and russian speaker. It took great courage for him to come forward and testify, and we are grateful in his service in doing so. How do you characterize colonel vindmans credibility, his consistency as a witness, and his recall ability . Well, this is clearly someone who has spent his entire professional life serving our country. You see him sitting there in an army colonel uniform, and you know that those badges have been earned in combat serving his country. This is not someone who plays politics, this is not someone who pulls his punches. This is a professional army officer, and hes describing exactly what he saw. And so i think his credibility is sky high. And i think that we are blessed to have men like colonel vindman come in and give the evidence that they know of, that they have truthfully under great risk, by the way, to his own professional standing and to do it because he thinks its part of his service to his country. Its another extension of a lifetime of service. And so the guys got great credibility with me. President trump attacked the colonel on twitter today. Well get to that later this hour. Did any republicans in that room attack colonel vindman today . What i can tell you without getting into the specifics is that its clear that the republicans cannot engage on the substance, so what theyre left with are silly process arguments which are now being mooted and also character assassination on a very good chairman adam schiff but also around the edges with allies at fox news on these witnesses. So youre going to have to ask my conservative colleagues why they would try to undermine someone who earned a purple heart in iraq, who served in the United States army and who has nothing but a distinguished record in his past when he comes in, swears an oath and talks about his firsthand knowledge of what happened on a white house call. Someone who speaks the native language of the ukrainian president. I mean, this is great witness with important testimony. Good luck undermining this guy. Ned price, weve all gone back to that rough transcript released by the white house of the president s phone call with the president of ukraine looking at the ellipses and wondering what might have been left out in the other two in the transcript. But youve also restudied it since this reporting has come out tonight about the inaccuracies in that transcript. What are you finding when you study it . I would totally agree with congressman maloney, we cant lose sight of the forest for the trees. The forest being President Trumps betray yall of our National Security. I would zoom in on the trees for just a moment here because i think it does underline not the crime but the coverup. And i say that because theres an especially pertinent fact we learned tonight from this New York Times story taken from this story. And thats as you and rachel were discussing some of the colonels edits to the transcript, or if you want to be technical, the memorandum of conversation, were incorporated. But some were not. And so that fact puts a very unflattering spotlight on the edits that were not. And according to tonights New York Times story there were two specific edits. One was a reference, an invocation to burisma, the Ukrainian Energy company, by president zelensky of ukraine and the second was the reference you mentioned to recordings of joe biden. The first edit, to me, the reference to burisma, could be completely innocuous. Of course the white house observers tend to be those who dont have indepth knowledge of ukraine. And that is why we have people like colonel vindman. The second edit and reference to recordings of joe biden seems to me much more nefarious. That doesnt seem to be the sort of content that could just be left out of the reconstructed transcript. And i think that brings me to something that has always torn at me about this transcript that was released by the white house. And thats this strange notation that you see on the transcript. It says on the upper righthand corner, package number short. And what should be there is a number. The fact that there is not a number there suggests this was never finalized. This document was never finalized in the system. And ultimately what that means, at least what my hunch is, is that this coverup started before colonel vindmans edits. Whether the coverup just started so quickly that the transcript was put on ice and it wasnt in touch from there. Edward mcmullen, your reaction tonight about what the New York Times is reporting about the transcript not being accurate, what weve heard from congressman maloney that within that hearing room today republicans didnt have anything of substance that they were challenging the colonel with. Id like to say that i agree with the comments of congressman maloney and also of ned. I think its interesting to zoom out a little bit here and to keep in mind the defense that the president and Vice President pence and their allies have offered for the past few weeks, which is theyre just interested in fighting corruption in ukraine and wherever it exists, they just want to fight corruption. What they want to do is take the focus away from their interest in Vice President joe biden as much as possible. And you sort of see that playing out with the way they handled this rough transcript as well, where whats left out and ned makes a very good point, some edits from vindman werent left out and some were. So why were the ones that were left out, why were they left out . One idea i would mention on the burisma point and on the reference to joe biden is that think about if those references are there, if the number of times that the president is mentioning joe biden or burisma or other proper nouns associated with the bidens, if the higher that number is, the more focused you can see that President Trump had on those issues, that it wasnt just a general interest in corruption, that this really is about joe biden, and you can also imagine how if youre president zelensky, the number of times President Trump is mentioning biden, biden, biden or burisma or other things or the amount of times there are these direct references to the bidens has an effect of putting more pressure on president zelensky, which is also other argument that trump and his allies have made, that there was no pressure. But these edits i think are important for showing there was focus of course on biden but also that zelensky probably did feel pressure and we know from other reporting he in fact did. And congressman maloney, we know from the colonels Opening Statement that he repeatedly went to the counsel of the National Security council to complain, to share his concerns, his worries about what he was hearing both from the president s phone call, things he heard in conversation with ambassador sondland. Was that part of the testimony that he was constantly trying to bring this to the attention of others . Was that clear in his testimony . Again, i cant talk about the testimony, but i will take note that there was a Statement Released before the testimony started. So i dont feel similarly encumbered about what he released or what was released as a public statement. What is clear to me, lawrence, let me put it this way, is that this is a person with a strong moral compass. This is person who believes theres right and theres wrong. And he saw something he thought he was wrong, and he felt he had a duty as an army officer to report it. And he was going to do that by the book. And that is what he continued to do today. To respond to a subpoena, you know, in a lawful manner and to come up here and to give truthful testimony. So i think youve got a guy whos very much trying to do the right thing, whos done it his whole life. This is guy who served us in iraq and paid a terrible price it. Hes an immigrant by the way and a Great American success story, and hes been serving his country honorably and hes seeking to continue to do so. And thank god for a man like colonel vindman because without them i dont know where wed be right now. Ned price, what happens Lieutenant Colonel vindman when he goes back for work in the Trump White House tomorrow . Whats so remarkable is the fact he was appearing before Congress Today pursuant to a subpoena because the white house has made quite clear it does not want its officials nor other executive Branch Officials complying with a lawful with a lawful subpoena issued by a coequal branch of government. And that in itself is pretty startling, the fact that in some ways colonel vindman had to buck his superiors in order to appear today. Certainly this is a white house that is known for its vindictiveness. This is white house known even on its best days to stab its colleagues and those around them in the back. So certainly i dont expect it will be an especially welcoming environment for colonel vindman, unfortunately. But its not like it was all that welcoming for him before today. There was a really remarkable aside in his prepared statement where colonel vindman noted in his year plus on the nsc staff hes never once communicated or met with President Trump. And this is our point person for ukraine. And that is really jarring and disturbing because we know that instead of meeting with experts, people like colonel vindman, President Trump has been seeking out Rudy Giuliani and another individual whose sole qualification is that he gave a Million Dollars to President Trumps inaugural committee. So this is not a government and a white house specifically that relies on expertise. And i fear that after today this is a white house that will rely even less on colonel vindmans expertise. And thats to the detriment of our National Security. Ambassador sundland reportedly came back to check his testimony. What is he allowed to do when hes checking the transcript of the testimony . Is he allowed to look at an answer where he says i dont recall or something and actually change the answer, say i have a better recollection now . He sure as hell better check that transcript, let me just say that. And i think the answer to your question is that if hes smart he and his counsel will maybe seek to come back and answer some additional questions in light of in light of what i think are the problems with his testimony. So without getting into the specifics, i can tell you this dilettante turned diplomat doesnt have half the credibility to me someone in that position ought to have, and it pales in comparison to witnesses like yovanovitch or taylor and now vindman. I think ambassador sondland should think long and hard about hes said and what he can say and should say. One who has been there for ambassador sondlands testimony said on this program last week he believed he was in danger of perjury charges on the basis of ambassador bill taylors testimony. Look, i dont want to gloss what i just told you. I think ambassador sondland ought to read his transcript carefully and he ought to see whether his recollection or his ability to answer in more complete ways has been enhanced, let me put it that way. I think ambassador sondland is at the heart of this thing, and he owes us truthful testimony, all of it. A