accusations indeed and that is something that may come up again and say in this sort of case that again especially with the of the former ambassador she was very very forthright very cautious in our language so she wasn't claiming necessarily uncertain especially with say the phone call 2 months after her departure was not make claiming to have information that she she didn't have this is something that i suspect congressman nunes is going to emphasize that this is a continuation their argument being that this is a continuation of just using hearsay using 2nd or 3rd hand information since again their main case they're trying to make i mean it affectively are trying to make the case that this isn't something that would be an impeachable offense and that this isn't a higher crime and misdemeanor and that if it is a high crime and misdemeanor one needs better evidence then that effectively i heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone which may be the strongest that we've is probably a strong case the republicans can make try and defend their side honestly all right

we're going to hell a bit more about a little more from that here and now this is another. we're going to hold on that for now and just carry on with this for a moment. i want to ask you as well as we're in this recess now and we're expecting . to hear from from the republican side on this they'll get 45 minutes presumably most of it will be taken up by their or by their own lawyer who will question maria vonn of h. and i were saying earlier that they are likely to focus on the fact that. she's kind of irrelevant in the sense that she wasn't around at that critical moment when that when that july 4th july 25th uncle took place. that would probably be a very significant portion of what they're going to talk about basically making the case of effectively trying to to make the argument that the testimony may be wonderful but it's completely irrelevant to what we're doing. probably i would

suspect that maybe the 1st probably the largest portion focused on basically undercutting that this this idea that it has anything to do necessarily with with the area of the issue in question but there would probably also segue over to talking about whether or not there is any reason why policy differences should be an impeachable offense i suspect that they will probably repeatedly ask the question of those a president have the authority to remove an ambassador for any reason which constitutionally yes the president does and that may be something they may use to try and undercut the testimony as well one of the potential pitfalls then for the republicans then when when they question marie ivanovitch probably the biggest would be either too. i would suspect probably the biggest pitfalls would be to either try and question too aggressively so again with the with one of the great benefits of the best testimonies that it humanizes the impeachment case should they be too aggressive in their questioning that in terms of political perspective might

be a harm to them depending upon how how harshly they go at it secondly if she is more willing to present certain things like specific names so again her implication that there were corrupt individuals in the u.s. who agreed with this if she was more if she would actually name some of those sort of individuals i assume that the republican counsel is not expecting any kind of answer like that if she would that would probably be something that would also undermine them just because it be so unexpected. while the chair of the house intelligence committee adam schiff said that trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani made his opinions on opening an investigation into biden's family quite clear we're going to hear that now rudy giuliani has made no secret of his desire to get ukraine to open investigations into the bidens as well as the conspiracy theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. as you said in one interview and may 29th team were not meddling in an election or maybe meddling in an investigation

which we have a right to do more recently he told c.n.n.'s chris cuomo of course i did when asked if he had pressed ukraine to investigate joe biden or evanovich also said that giuliani should have known it claims about what coming from sources i do not understand mr giuliani's motives for attacking me nor can i offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me. clearly no one at the state department and what i can say is that mr giuliani should have known those claims were suspect coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial and the shins would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in ukraine so this is again part of the picture isn't it that the democrats are trying to paint here that rudy

giuliani was was you know operating this this 2nd. channel through what many people saw as as some shady people in in ukraine and i know essentially operating this this shadow u.s. foreign policy outside of the normal channels indeed though and i suspect this may be something that the republican side might bring up as well this is in some ways a difference of belief or frame we might say that one of the responses will likely be once again the president sets foreign policy that the idea that the president has a shadow foreign policy against the state department the republican side will basically be arguing the state department's job is to follow the foreign policy of the american president they are not an independent agency they are not an independent entity so to say that giuliani giuliani is full of forming a shadow foreign policy with the american president. in many ways the republican

side is probably to make the argument that this doesn't even make sense that this this is instead and this will fall to will probably be one of the arguments that i don't know if new years but some of the other republicans might make of saying this is the when they make this argument about say like a a deep state coup were something of this type where they're effectively going to make the argument of saying the state department the bureaucracy is effectively trying to overturn a president because they don't like his policy because they don't like how he does things and that the president had to rely on someone like giuliani and the shadow foreign policy just to get things done has to to tional as questionable as that might be again just the question of is that something is actually impeachable and that's probably something the republicans are going to emphasize is that using secondary sort of aides while again maybe not the wisest and prudent thing isn't a high crime or misdemeanor and it's worth reminding ourselves as well that as part of the whole impeachment inquiry the democrats are planning to call in the toshi

a total of 9. additional witnesses i believe in the in the space of of a week or so including almost everyone that's been deposed behind closed doors in that testimony last month. and we are expecting perhaps a vote a full vote in the house on impeachment by the end of the year. and reminding ourselves as well that the initial impeach the initial impeachment inquiry that the house held. not a single republican voted to go ahead with that it was all democrats do you think any any more republicans might have been persuaded by anything they've heard so far . from what the testimony has been so far my suspicion is pretty loose there is something that we said in closed doors that's quite explosive my own suspicion would be probably not given both what what we're hearing inside the testimony so

far and to be honest what's been leaked so far from some of the that the close testimony hearings it is doubtful there's really going to be anything that will change any of the republicans view is now depending on how public opinion changes that might shift some of them in one direction or another but so far when terms of the testimony if there is a term that oftentimes comes up is there's no real smoking gun at this point there is so far the democrats haven't been able to provide something that for the public and for republicans would be a sort of aha here is the crime moment eliciting more explosive comes up so no bombshells essentially that you've heard so far no bombshells nothing nothing no bombshells and also nothing that can be clearly focused on is saying this is a clear high crime and misdemeanor. looking back to say like previous president something like same with clinton and committing perjury or with nixon and perjury and obstruction of justice there's nothing necessarily that clear for the moment

philip great thanks very much good to get your perspective now former ambassador. had said in that testimony that she was devastated to be dismissed and she says no one from the state department actually explained to her why president trump had such concerns about. after being asked by the undersecretary of state for political affairs in early march 21000 to extend my tour until 2020 the skinnier campaign against me entered a new public phase in the united states in the wake of the negative press state department officials suggested earlier departure and we agreed upon july 21000 i was then abruptly told just weeks later in late april to come back to washington from ukraine on the next plane when i returned to the united states deputy secretary of state sullivan told me there had been a concerted campaign against me that the president no longer wished me to serve as embassador to ukraine and that in fact the president had been pushing for my

removal since the prior summer as mr sullivan recently recounted during his senate confirmation hearing neither he nor anyone else ever explained or sought to justify the president's concerns about me nor did anyone in the department justify my early departure by suggesting i had done something wrong. all right so just been hearing a couple of clips there from maria von of been testifying earlier before the house intelligence committee the impeachment inquiry of u.s. president castro is with us outside the hearing room right now so as you're saying we're still in a recess right now but we are expecting to hear from the republicans when they come back they'll get their chance to question her. you van of each will will say. what kind of questions will we be expecting from the republicans when they get their

chance they have to be they have to be slightly careful about this don't they. they do and has in our guests have been exactly right on the money in pointing out what is the weakness to marie iran which is a we as a witness and that is she admittedly was out of the picture by the time that this phone call happened between trump and zelinsky and the pressure campaign to get ukraine to have that statement about investigating transport opponents before that really took hold and so republicans will surely 0 in on that she had no real interactions with the president at all through the chorus of all of these events that we have been describing that are key to this impeachment inquiry and republicans time and time again are zeroing in on that message it's not only the story here that this happened and that the american public is being told by democrats that would happen that what happened was wrong it's a step further it's saying that president trump is to blame for these things that

are wrong and that is still a leap that democrats are struggling to prove to convince the public a lead to take with them and republicans we saw the other day in their questioning of previous witnesses calling the testimonies that we've heard so far secondhand there's not been anyone who has publicly been on t.v. yet in these open hearings who said that the process. didn't directly did or said anything that is incriminating now that may change next week when we will hear from other witnesses who indeed were in contact with the president but at this point that is likely still the weakness of memory that you have on of each and other previous witnesses we've heard that republicans will 0 in on so what what what's the. given all of what you've said there what's the what's the point the democrats are trying to get across then with maria von of which is test me what what what is she adds to all of this is it more of a kind of an assessment of the of the direction things were going in. and just kind

of more of a human side to the whole thing. right well democrats you know publicly have stated that they are not rushing to impeach the president that they haven't even decided whether or not to impeach him but in private they've been saying very different things and sources on the hill have told me that even if even though it seems unlikely that the president would actually be impeached and removed from office which of course would take republicans to defect from him that there's still a bigger picture here we can never rule out the next upcoming presidential election as an overriding factor in all of this that brown will be up for reelection in november of next year in less than a year from now and so even if democrats are unable to convince their republican colleagues to remove the president from office they're still playing at this bigger and game and that's why making these emotional arguments to the american public or

watching these hearings still has a value to democrats because they do make it they do tell the story from the position of marie giovanni bitch who appears to be sympathetic and credible witness and it tells the story of what democrats say is corruption before the theatre president trump. in very human terms we heard our guest saying that this is this is the democrats' effort to humanize this story humanizing the story may not be enough to remove trump from office via impeachment but democrats are thinking perhaps it is enough to convince the electorate to not vote him back to his 2nd term in office right and you mentioned earlier that we were expected to hear from several more witnesses as these hearings go on in the next week before the thanksgiving break in the u.s. what what can they add to all of this then. well next week we will be watching carefully the testimony of gordon sunland he is the e.u. ambassador from the u.s.

and he is the closest that democrats have come to speaking with someone who actually was in direct contact with president trump there are other aides who have been much closer but they have all refused to comply with orders to appear before congress under the white house ruction not to cooperate but what someone has told investigators behind closed doors is that he had a clear impression he said that trump did want an explicit quid pro quo that trump wanted him to let the ukrainians know that they were not getting security money from the u.s. if ukraine didn't draft and publicize a statement that they were investigating trump's political rivals who likely will go up against him in the upcoming elections so someone has said he had direct conversations with trump in which those issues came up also interestingly this

afternoon there will be another hearing this is one that we haven't talked about a lot about because this one is going to happen behind closed doors this is going to be a lower staff member in the ukrainian embassy in kiev who investigate has just learned about 2 days ago this person came forward saying that he overheard a phone conversation between trump and ambassador a sawmill and in which trump was said it was saying that he didn't get it that he didn't think he cared about getting these investigations on joe biden his political rivals so that is another piece of evidence that may have put the president more closely at the center of the accusations that democrats are leveling at him but again it's still difficult hurdle to cross where republicans are zeroing in on the president himself. elf has not been directly implicated in these public hearings and he has not been up to this point that may change later on as these

hearings progress but that is the key defense that republicans are sticking to yeah and republicans as well have criticized those closed door hearings but what what is the purpose of them for the democrats because this is something that's that's quite common in many legal cases. right and in this case it's interesting because in previous impeachments of u.s. presidents there have been evidentiary hearings like what's happening with trump but those happened by either special counsels or criminal cases in which there wasn't a lot of evidence that was developed before was presented to the public the difference here now is the pace of this impeachment inquiry of trump is much faster the avodah is developing before the public's very eyes and to try to contain that

a little bit the democrats started this process out with those closed door hearings which went on for a few weeks prior to the public phase that just started here this week and the purpose of those closed door hearings was to gather the information the facts and to try to get away from the partisan noise that you just saw displayed and that will i'm sure we'll see more of as now the the 2 parties have chances to investigate it to question maria maria vonnegut's further but so much of that takes away from the narrative and the facts themselves democrats trying to contain that trying to make this a concise and digestible narrative to the american public. all right for the moment castro live for us there on capitol hill and just to remind you we're at we're in a brief recess right now from the avant of each hearing and they're expected to come back

a little bit later. let's go live now to the white house correspondent kimberly halkett there for us so we mentioned that trump tweet a little bit earlier and there's been quite a lot of reaction to that suite already the fact that he is doing this in real time while maria vonn of his shit was was going before the committee. yeah there is no question that the reactionary war room if you will here at the white house is in full effect well the white house says the president isn't following these hearings he has been tweeting throughout the hearing so far and directly responding to much of the testimony as it is playing out one of the tweets where as you know we've been talking about that testimony by the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie iran a bitch and he's responding to her testimony saying everywhere marie your vantage went it turned bad she started off in somalia how did that go then fast forward to

ukraine where the new ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her and my 2nd phone call with him it is the united states president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors they call it serving at the pleasure of the president so this is the argument fact was even brought up by the democratic attorney as he spoke there questioning that witness that she does have to realize that she is serving at the pleasure of the president but facts aside the argument that she made in her testimony was yes we recognize but it is so way usual to have somebody recalled in the manner in which she was recalled to the president's personal attorney had been conducting allegedly a smear campaign against her that it was very much in the public realm and when the president directly tweeted about her saying that she was doing a very bad job that she felt shocked appalled insulted in her review it was very disgusting so there's no question that what is trying to be made in terms of the

argument is an emotional appeal to the american public that this is a very public face of somebody a career foreign service official who was let go in the most in elegant of manners whether or not that again is going to sway the needle is the big challenge and i should point out on my way to the white house here i ran into a republican colleague a friend who has been in washington. for many many years even longer than myself he said that he has been hearing that in fact this isn't totally playing the way the democrats would hope the swaying of the needle in terms of a surge of public support behind impeachment doesn't seem to be happening so far whether that will change after this he's said to shrug his shoulders that some democrats are maybe unlikely that's why we're even started to hear discussion now that the vote on impeachment may not be a foregone conclusion that there could be another tactic that could be introduced and that would be censure something where. one of the government's own is

reprimanded in the u.s. congress that's still a long way off but it gives you a sense that this is not a foregone conclusion that this is not a done deal that if the american voting public is not entirely convinced this could backfire on democrats who had hoped to have an overwhelming case against the president another thing we're seeing here in all of this is a shift in language initially we heard a lot of quid pro quo some latin terms not very layman friendly what it essentially means or what they were arguing is that the president was looking for some of this for that essentially he wanted the promise of an investigation against his former rival or his current rival former vice president joe biden in exchange for a meeting at the white house but quid pro quo doesn't play very well to ordinary folks who don't know latin so now what we're hearing is more the argument that this was bribery that is something that is more easily digestible by the american voting

public so there is an awareness it appears in the some deliberate strategy of both sides democrats have their strategy trying to make this case but we also see getting back full circle to what we've been talking about here hasn't the the strategy on the part of the white house is very clear that they see donald trump as their main spokesperson so even though there's just this denial that the president is not watching the proceedings that he's working on behalf of the american people he's responding directly to testimony in real time. what's the what's been the discussion in the u.s. media about all of this kimberly because there's some some of been suggesting that the kind of subject matter of these hearings phone calls talk about withholding aid is kind of to quote them boring not particularly you know lacking lacking possess as compared with previous the subject of previous previous impeachment inquiries but it's important to point out some that these are this is

a discussion of substantive issues. absolutely i mean there's we can't underscore enough that there is a constitutional obligation of the house of representatives of the u.s. senate of the congress of the whole the legislative branch to make sure they have equal power over this white house so there's this obs this obligation to do checks and balances as you often hear no one body is stronger than the other and the argument from democrats is this is a president who is behaving like an imperial president that he was exceeding the powers granted to him by the u.s. constitution having said all of that trying to make that case to the american public is pretty challenging what you've got there is a parade of witnesses who are you know not sort of your ordinary folks that you might run into in a coffee shop these are people with multiple university degrees on the case on wednesday one gentleman a critter diplomat very distinguished was wearing

a vote not something most americans would do it's a challenge because the language is very precise it's very lofty it's very technical in some cases exclusive to the foreign service in the diplomatic corps again hard for the american public to digest contrast that to 998 when bill clinton was also facing impeachment proceedings but for something very different it was an argument where words the lofty words being used might be salacious because of the nature of the subject matter which was facing the u.s. president at the time the allegations were easier to understand and that is been the challenge for democrats because there's no question that they feel this isn't historic moment that it is incumbent upon them to make sure that a president and no future president feels that they can extend beyond the powers granted to them of the constitution trying to get that and hammer that home to the public is the challenge that they are facing so far it appears most polls that they

haven't been able to succeed so far but this isn't over just yet. certainly isn't for the moment kimberly how good life for us there in the white house thanks very much so this has been our coverage of the hearings impeachment hearings of u.s. president donald trump they see a live picture of the hearing room on capitol hill they are in a recess right now they are expected to come back shortly and when they do the republicans will get their chance to question marie avant of each for 45 minutes just to bring you up to speed in the testimony that she has given so far she gave a very adept damning assessment of ukraine policy when she was ambassador she said are you claim policy has been thrown into disarray and shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an american ambassador who does not give them what they want she was forced out of her position back in april but that

was 2 months before the july phone call which at the at the center of all this that phone call between the u.s. president don't trump and ukrainian president vladimir we're going to step away from washington from now but we will come back once they resume those hearings. so bring you up to speed with some of the other news making the making the making a day here iraqi officials say police fired tear gas and live ammunition on protesters in central baghdad killing 2 people the grand ayatollah ali sistani has condemned attacks on peaceful protesters in the country and says none of the demonstrates his demands have been met there's been some comfort stations between police and protesters in baghdad the iraqi human rights commission says at least 325 people have been killed so far as iraq's government has taken some measures to

address the grievances of many protesters want to complete overhaul of the political system june is in baghdad. so the smoke that you're seeing there that's coming from the square of the square is just about 300 meters to the north of where we are we're into your square which is the epicenter of the anti-government demonstrations and here in baghdad to let you square that is a square in which there have been repeated clashes this cycle of violence that keeps happening the last several days when anti-government demonstrators that are there trying to get around these concrete barriers that the security forces have set up so that people in that square cannot then approach the bridges that lead to parts of the city where there are government installations as i said to here's where this is the epicenter this is really the only place where it's lawful for people to protest in baghdad and there's a lot of contradiction here because what you have the violence going on in places like around the square here you have a times almost a festive atmosphere but you also have ambulances and medics bringing the injured

from those other clashes here for treatment if you look around me here are several ambulances there are volunteer medics there are tents full of medics and these took drivers that. as soon as ambulance drivers adhoc ambulance drivers bringing the injured. here for treatment so while you walk from certainly since all the all the tension because of the violence that goes on in other parts of the debt here you also have a bass about his fear at times and if you look just around me there are families here this is a party it's a weekend there are families here there are mothers and fathers bringing their children to see this historic moment you have here a stretch of wall where there are many murals protest art that's been painted and repainted almost every day for the last several weeks and so there's a lot of different things going on here in tahrir square now everybody i've spoken

with here today they've told me that they do not believe that the government is actually listening to this actually taking their demands into account they say they're going to continue to come out here to tell the cuban government to actually try to really try to make the forms and listening to their demands. so many people who have to travel to demonstrations to go in to talk to a common form of transport across many iraqi cities but in baghdad drive as say they're increasingly being attacked the teshuva name spoke to some of them in the cities to hear square. that. the tech truck drivers of tahrir square have attained a kind of hero status turning their motorized rickshaws into ambulances on 3 wheels they've also been transporting food and medical supplies to protesters who are free now they say this work is putting them at risk. just that i was told there

were injuries to took took so what really arrived there the police targeted us burned my took took a rest. you're seeing the wounds on his legs karrar ali stood in front of his burned out talk talk this week to show the results of what he says are targeted attacks against drivers this. young men here are more important than the took took i don't care about it i sacrificed it for the people hyder abdul hussein says 4 men asked for a ride and then tried to kill him when he wouldn't hand over his vehicle he lost his talk took the source of an income that supports his family but that's the least of his concerns. the doctors told me if i don't have medicine they were moved on i don't have money for medicine way can i get it. despite the attacks talk to still race through the square honking for protesters to get out of the way drivers refuse to accept money ighly heidi says someone threw

a bottle of cocktail on top of the tuck tuckey rents he and other protesters managed to put out the fire before it was destroyed. i'm worried about the took took more than myself because i don't own it when it was damaged i cried it's not mine. though they have to be pushed to admit it the tuc took drivers of talk we're square have been losing money now even knowing they're being targeted those who still have a functioning tucked tell us as long as there are protesters who need them they'll continue to drive a 0 back at. our refugee and journalists has arrived in new zealand off the spending 6 years in a prison camp in papua new guinea while there by whose will chani wrote an award winning book and made a film on his phone and to thomas reports from sydney. this. he says is finally freedom after 6 years detained in papua new guinea for trying to

seek asylum in australia the iranian journalist is in a country that has welcomed him i think it's in the 1st time that i feel at them happy. i saw why you know i think it is. more. they fled iran in 2013 he got to indonesia and from there took a boat to australia as christmas island but australia to the refugees had a new policy of sending them to prison camps on remote pacific islands which was held on man a silent in papua new guinea conditions where poor some fellow detainees were murdered killed themselves or died through inadequate medical care but from behind high fences to chant he worked as a campaigner and as a journalist he became a spokesman for the refugees we. want to. see.