geechmengeechmen impeachment, s&p rose to 27%. it all depends on the strength of the economy. >> alison, thanks so much. and thanks so much for joining me, everybody. "inside politics" with john king starts right now. thank you, kate, and welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. we begin the hour with new developments all connected with the whistleblower complaint, now the lynch pin to the democratic impeachment push. nancy pelosi refused today to put a specific timeline on the investigation, but the committee taking the lead, telling reporters, expect subpoenas for key witnesses and telling its members to be ready to work during a planned two-week congressional recess. speaker pelosi says the president's request will be an overwhelming focus, but part of

that must include the attorney general and how quickly his department decided the allegations raised by the whistleblower did not warrant a criminal investigation. >> the committee will make their own announcements about who they're calling in to be witnesses. i do believe the attorney general has gone rogue. he has for a long time now. since he was mentioned in all of this, it's curious that he would be making decisions about how the complaint would be handled. >> also new today, the president's own staff undercutting his attacks on the whistleblower's credibility. the president tweeting this morning that the whistleblower's information cannot be trusted. but white house officials are confirming to cnn now a key element of the whistleblower's accounts. kaitlan collins is live at the white house. kaitlan, what are we learning. >> reporter: this is significant because for the first time the white house is saying, yes, white house lawyers did direct staff to move that transcript of the president's call with the ukrainenian president from wher

they are typically stored to a highly secure area where they aren't typically stored. a cnn white house official said, quote, nfc meeting financial security lawyers directed the white house document be handled appropriately. what you could read into that is there is a national security council luawyer who instriktuct his staff to move this transcript to an area where they're not normally kept, because even though the president is on twitter this morning questioning the credibility of this whistleblower, this backs up a key part of the complaint from the whistleblower. look at the complaint. the white has been dismissing it, saying he's imparting inaccurate information. the whistleblower said, quote, one of the officials said they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts

are typically scored for coordination, finalization and distribution to cabinet-level officials. so it is significant. even though the president is doubting this person's credibility, behind the scenes white house officials on background, meaning not using their name, are confirming, yes, white house lawyers did direct staff to move that transcript, john. >> kaitlan collins, appreciate that reporting from the white house. with me in studio to share their reporting and their insights julie pace with the associated press, bloomberg. the white house call says the call was perfect. they remove a redacted transcript of the call. the whistleblower report very accurately describes the call by

the white house's own transcript. now they say don't believe the whistleblower, it's bad information. the white house confirms to us, yes, just as the whistleblower said in his complaint or her complaint that this information was put in a secret vault. >> the white house seems to be trying to make this a question of motivation. so, yes, the transcript was moved into the server. they say that is normal process. the whistleblower says that was effectively a cover-up, an attempt to hide this transcript that white house officials knew would be problematic. i think you're going to see that as part of the white house strategy if other parts of the whistleblower complaint hold up, and so far they have, to try to say, sure, that step happened, but it's not -- it didn't happen because of the reason the whistleblower said. it didn't happen because people were nervous about it, it didn't happen for some improper reason, we were simply following protocol. what you're seeing is this white house just trying to shape their own version of events. the whistleblower gopt the first jump on this narrative and now the white house has to go through step by step and try to cast their own narrative.

>> it's a great point you make, though, following protocol or following trump protocol? according to previous administrations, this was not done. democrat, republican, go back through time. there was a system for handling these things that has been pretty consistent over time. but if you go back again, remember the anonymous essay of a year ago. the whistleblower tracked some of that, that you have white house staff essentially working to, quote, unquote, protect themselves or protect the president from themselves or protect the country from the president and so on, and having an extraordinary system of doing things. >> i think the reason why there is a secrecy around his calls is because they've been embarrassed before with accounts of his calls being released to the public. but at the same time it doesn't explain why, in a situation like this in which the president wants to claim on the one hand the call was perfect, the white house would be trying to prevent him from embarrassment via leaks by moving the call to a different server.

you have a real disconnect in the narrative that i think will be apparent to people who are hearing about the president's side of this and the whistleblower's side on this. but to your point about the whistleblower, there are so many people in this white house who are trying to, in their view, do their jobs, pursuing a foreign policy that is coherent in this administration, and it's almost impossible to do that when the president undermines that effort in a phone call in which he apparently seems to be seeking his own political gain. so that's why you have all these officials in private conversations in the white house, according to the whistleblower, really expressing frustration that they cannot move forward on the policy of the government of the united states. >> and the question becomes, if you also talk to the other new developments today, the house intelligence committee warning its members essentially, you're supposed to be on recess the next two weeks. we'll be doing some work. some of it will be behind the scenes, like subpoenas. i'm sure the national security lawyers, the people who decided this is the system we're going to have in this white house,

will be subpoenaed to come before the intelligence committee to explain the tick-tock. the question then becomes, does the white house say yes or do we have the boom? >> that is what's happening now, is that adam schiff and the intelligence community is trying to figure out, what is our witness list, what is our document list, maybe more importantly, of who we need to hear from and what we need to see to be able to bear out some of what the wib is shag. if the white house can argue, and it looks like they will, this is standard protocol for this administration, was it a proper protocol? or was that a protocol arrived at because the president was having conversations like the july conversation with the ukranian president. but according to the whistleblower, there were other conversations of sufficient concern that those records were being handled that way. that will be a key what adam schiff calls a road map for them moving forward, and i think we'll see them move pretty quickly to get the information they can for how that process

was laid out. >> this will be a very consequential situation for them to make. they have to decide the two targets they're going to go after. agent barr is involved, rudy giuliani is involved. the state department has implicated them and they're not happy about that. the second question is what articles of impeachment do they pursue? the ukranian president seems to be frontliner into getting yes on impeachment, but there are obstructions of justice, obstructions of congress that the institutionalists really feel strongly about and want to go after, and there is the issue of emoluments that the party wants to go after. this is a very big decision for nancy pelosi. >> and they're going to issue subpoenas, that tells you they want to do this as quickly as possible. that's because there's an election year reporting. republicans say this is just politics, you're trying to

poison the election. number two, they understand how the president operates. we're seeing examples of that, the president on twitter attacking the chairman of the intelligence committee, who is essentially the lead person right now that we expect to become an impeachment process. adam schiff read with thousands watching a conversation with the ukranian president that doesn't exist. adam schiff did what he later said was a parody at the beginning of the committee, meaning yesterday. most democrats would say that was a profound mistake in the sense that this is not funny. none of this is funny. whatever your partisan alignments, and that if democrats are going to move this process forward, they have to behave almost perfectly. >> they really do because right now this is just a democratic process. how do you make a process run by one party not look partisan? it's a very difficult task. to your point earlier, i think speed is crucial here, and that's because speed is the difference. trump has been investigated before for emoluments and a

whole hoest of things. he was investigated by bob mueller. it was long and drawn out. this has to be quick and adds to the president's power. >> the president, we talked about tweeting this morning, sounding more and more like a so-called whistleblower isn't a whistleblower at all. in addition, all secondhand information that is proved to be so inaccurate that there may not have been someone else, a leak or a spy, feeding it to him or her. a partisan operative. we're going to go through this for months, i think. that's just bogus in the sense that anything we've been able to corroborate from the whistleblower complaint has turned out to be spot on. the call with ukraine, the whistleblower complaint filed before that memo was released almost verbatim. has it. the whistleblower saying they had this other system, the secret computer where they put the transcripts. the white house now confirming the president is correct there. which gets you to this point. this is under the president's

skin which is why this is important, what the president said yesterday about the whistleblower. >> who is the person that gave the whistleblower? who is the person that gave the whistleblower the information, because that's close to a spy. you know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart, right, to spies and treason, sfl right? we used to handle it a little differently than we do now. >> number one, he's in a room with american diplomats. the people who we hope if they see wrongdoing in their own government -- not every whistleblower is correct. you still want them to have the courage to come forward. he's in a room with american diplomats and he's saying this person is a spy. this person, even if he or she has some things wrong, is trying to do the right thing. treat him like we did in the good old days. they executed spies in the good old days.

that's intimidation. >> this goes along with the mueller investigation with the very fact that the impeachment inquiry prods the president to do more things that will be pointed to as unsuited for office or just illegal or obstruction of justice. he seems to be going down that road. what's striking is you probably remember back in the clinton impeachment days, theie dictiona -- edict in the white house is we're not going to talk about it. the staff isn't going to talk about it, the president isn't going to talk about it. unfortunately, there is not a lot of discipline that goes on around him and his team and people don't say, you can't talk about this, you're not going to disparage this whistleblower. this person has been deemed as credible and a patriot by your own director of national intelligence and the inspector general, and you can't do that. he's not going to listen to that, so that comes back to what julie was saying in terms of speed. >> the striking part to me is

you see people standing in the room, holding up their phones. it's not like he thinks he's in an off the record private setting with friends and family here. he's in a room with people. >> he effectively does the same thing with twitter. he's angry about this and we're going to hear about it pretty much every single day. we'll take a quick break. when we come back, much more on this. not only the calculations by the white house but the democrats are going forward. the question is how broad of an investigation and how fast do you get it done?

it is chairman adam schiff leading the way with the impeachment inquiry over the call to ukraine. but here's where we go from here. >> reporter: can you give us a time frame of when the committee plans to wrap up? before thanksgiving? >> no, they'll do the work they have to do, following the facts and the time it takes to find the facts. as you know, we never know where we're going next. now i think we're getting involved in a cover-up of a cover-up, and that may take some time to investigate. >> cover-up of the cover-up. she means the justice department, in her view, helping the white house hide things. we'll see where the facts take us as we go forward.

she doesn't want to put a firm timeline on it, and yet privately she's telling the chairman and committee, move. >> in many ways i think they have a pathway to do that much more easily on this particular probe than perhaps if they were trying to dig into some of the elements of the mueller investigation. one of the reasons is actually the thing that president trump has been keying in on, which is who are the people inside the white house who talked to the whistleblower? this becomes one of the major elements of the probe. the president is calling it secondhand knowledge, but what it actually is is proof that there are a lot of people who either work in the white house right now or worked in the white house until recently who can be called as witnesses. some of those people do not work in the white house and may not be covered under privilege concerns like the former director of national intelligence dan coats and his deputy sue gordon. these are the red flags for president trump and for people in the white house. this probe can move much more quickly because there is a laundry list of potential

witnesses that can be called before congress to help this process go at a much faster clip and reveal really new information that we may not already know. >> it's interesting, because there is. you could build a long list of people. okay, even if you were a republican and actually wanted answers, you could build a list. let's bring them in, put them under oath and we could debunk it. but there are other democrats who say we have the president's own words. on that memo from the call to ukraine, we don't really need a lot more. >> what will you investigate? what more do you need to know about that call? >> i don't believe we need to know much more. i would recommend to my colleagues that we keep this simple. of course, the president is entitled to a fair process like anyone, but that we don't need to have months-long hearings, we don't need to hear from people who will show up and insist on executive privileges that don't exist. we ever the president's own words. >> easy to understand that

argument in the sense that we've seen the administration saying no to telling congress what day of the week it is, therefore, how are they going to be able to put forward documents and witnesses and things like that. but there is a counterargument. this is angie craig in minnesota in a much tougher district than eric swalwell. she says, i'm in a district where i've been reluctant to move fwa move forward only from the perspective where i want to be disciplined, i want to look at due process and want to make sure we get all of our facts. and this process will allow us to do that. >> many people want to vote on impeachment. there is the aid and investigation of his political rival. democrats can look at that and say, it's not explicit, that may not be enough to get him charged guilty in a court of law. but this is impeachment. the bar is higher for public officials, higher for the

president, so democrats have to decide what level of facts are enough to make that case. pelosi doesn't want to sound like she's prejudging this. she knows there is an election year coming up but she doesn't want to say she has to have it done by x time. >> there are some members of congress and craig probably falls in this category who, if the white house participates, if they say yes, certain people can speak, yes, we will give over certain documents, they may look at the end of the day and say, i don't like this, i don't know if this is impeachable. if the white house stonewalls everything and we go into a situation where you've got obstruction of congress, how many lawmakers say, that's okay, if the president of the united states just says no to our oversight ability. the white house is going to have to think about this. they tried to stonewall pretty much everything, but that could make the process of impeachment much more difficult for the president to overcome. >> it's a great point and we'll come to the republican calculation a little later in

the program, but for the democrats the number has spiked so dramatically than the number of democrats who support an inquiry. i just want to look at the 13. there are only 13 of the 235 democrats, only 13 left who still don't, and guess why. 11 of them are in districts won by the president of the united states, seven of them in districts where the president won by more than ten points, nine in districts that flipped to democrat in 2018. you have a small group left who are in the most vulnerable democratic districts who are still nvervous about where the party is headed. >> and you see anonymous decision by the republicans. at least half say they're in favor of an impeachment inquiry, but i do think this obstruction of congress can be key because there could be a difference on whether you need a quid pro quo or not to say this was

inappropriate behavior or high crime misdemeanor. a lot of democrats, some republicans i've talked to prooif privately, don't think you need that at all. he already said he was trying to get a foreign leader to do something for him and it was of a political nature to try to tarnish one of his rivals. there was an inquiry in the more moderate districts and it was a tough call. if you add that layer that they're not even cooperating with congress, they're obstructing congress, that was one of the impeachment articles against nixon. that much they can agree upon. >> as we go to break, just a reminder, house speaker nancy pelosi was not always where she is today on the question of impeachment. >> they want me to impeach president bush for the iraq war. i didn't believe it in then, i don't believe in it now. it divides the country unless there is crucial evidence that takes us to that place. >> i think there is 238 out of

238 have said they wanted to be outspoken on impeachment. >> every time one of my members sa says, oh, the pressure is on. the pressure is not on. >> are you comfortable with the term impeachment inquiry. is there another term that should be used? >> thank you very much. today i am announcing the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. nock an arrow, and disappear. this is what you prepared for. he's moving more in daylight and whenever you can, you'll be hunting dawn to dusk. this is what you live for. it's your season. so hurry in to bass pro shops and cabela's to stock up now on all your opening day essentials at big savings. it's the outdoor traditions sale at bass pro shops and cabela's. your adventure starts here.

[ [ tires screech ]playing ] mom, you've got to get yourself a new car. the car's fine. [ car horn honks ] i wish i could save faster. you're making good choices. you'll get there. got it? yeah. ♪ thank you. bye. were you going to tell me about this? i know i can't afford to go. you can't even afford to get yourself a new car. i still have this car so you can afford to go. [ music resumes ]

i'm so proud of you. thank you, mom. principal. we can help you plan for that. start today at principal.com.

hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant

someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

a very big question in washington today, are house democrats on their own or will the republican-led senate look at all into allegations raised in that explosive whistleblower complaint? the gop chairman of the intelligence committee choosing his words very carefully. >> acting director mcguire and the icig, michael atkinson, were extremely forthcoming with us today, extremely helpful at trying to fill in some of the things we haven't been able to pick up just from the published documents. this will generate more questions than we ask today, so the next few weeks we'll probably be trying to get answers to those. but we've started in the process. don't expect us to move at lightspeed. that will probably happen in the house. but the committee is committed to make sure that we get to the bottom of what questions need

answers. >> cnn's manu raju live on capitol hill. how deep is chairman burr ready to go? >> reporter: he's trying to have a bipartisan investigation, the same thing mark warner, vice president of the committee, is trying to conduct, same way they conducted the russia investigation. the question ultimately is what do they ultimately find, how quick do they come up with answers? after all the russia investigation is still ongoing in their committee. they have yet to issue a report on how they determine the issue of collusion, for instance, which was one of the central areas of their more than two-year investigation. they're planning to do all of this mostly behind closed doors. they already tried to get an interview with the whistleblower. it's the same thing happening with the house intelligence committee. but john, the house intelligence committee is moving at a much different pace. i just talked to adam schiff,

the intelligence committee chairman, he says he wants to move ahead with hearings as quickly as possible. he said they could be as soon as next week with witness depositions and the like. he wouldn't say who he want to bring forward, but as the democrats move forward with the impeachment inquiry, attempting to move on articles of impeachment as soon as this fall, the democrats are moving pretty rapidly with the house intelligence committee, including members coming back to washington to carry out the investigation. we'll see how the senate proceeds. right now richard burr taking a different tack than his colleagues, not talking about the veracity of the whistleblower's complaint, unlike a lot of republicans who are dismissing the concerns. just moments ago tim scott, a republican from south carolina, told tom barrett that the whistleblower complaint is nothing but hearsay. he says he wants to investigate this fully. john? >> we'll watch.

it might be a tale of who different paces but we'll see if they get to the same or different results. next up, more on the republican process. republicans say there is no "there" there. some say they would welcome an investigation into the roles of rudy giuliani and those secret white house computer servers. johnsbut we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you.

i mean, if you haven't thought abfrankly, you're missing out. uh... the mobile app makes it easy to manage your policy, even way out here. your marshmallow's... get digital id cards, emergency roadside service, even file a... whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa. whoa! oops, that cheeky little thing got away from me. my bad. geico. it's easy to manage your policy whenever, wherever. can i trouble you for another marshmallow?

i felt i couldn't be at my best for my family. in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. woman: what gives me confidence about investment decisions? rigorous fundamental research. with portfolio managers focused on the long term. who look beyond the spreadsheets to understand companies, from breakroom to boardroom. who know the only way to get a 360 view is to go around the world to get it. can i rely on deep research to help make quality investment decisions? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

more now on where the president's fellow republicans stand now that we know the president did ask ukraine's leader to look for dirt on joe biden. former trump 2016 rival senator fr ted cruz from texas. >> i have to say the transcript sure didn't live up to its billing. investigating the election from 2016, it is a perfectly appropriate law enforcement priority. i'm not sure why they think ukranian interference shouldn't be examined. >> but it's not all that black and white across the gop. many republicans do say they

don't support how the president handled that phone call with ukraine's president. some say there are more questions to be answered here, like congressman james kilmer of kentucky. >> i would welcome more investigation. i take my role in the oversight committee very seriously. i'm open to hear what role giuliani played, i'm open to hear about the other serve esr what information may be in that server. >> it's been a pretty dramatic 48 hours. first you get the summary, the memo, on the call with the president and the president of ukraine. then we get the whistleblower complaint, some of which needs to be investigated, but some are clearly corroborated by other information. are there any significant cracks in the president's party? >> i don't particularly see any significant cracks yet, but i do think just as this has moved very quickly and the democratic side where it's almost like

flipping a switch where they say, we're not doing impeachment to we are doing impeachment and very quickly. they see given there is documentary evidence, a transcript, a whistleblower complaint, a whistleblower who has been deemed to be credible by top intelligence officials, they need to leave themselves a little bit of room here to not just close the door on the possibility there may have been wrongdoing or something they may later want to point to as saying, that crosses a red line. you heard a little of that at the senate intelligence committee hearing yesterday, and you'll hear more, but certainly you won't have people jumping ship at this point. it's preserving the space in case this gets worse. because the one really, i think, powerful line in that whistleblower complaint is that while they describe one phone call, they make clear this has happened other times. so republicans have to be wary of just how much more there is to come and there could be something that actually looks

worse than what we see in the ukraine phone call. they don't want to be seen as abandoning the president until they have more information, but they also know this is not the full extent of the evidence that's going to be on the table. >> if that part of the whistleblower complaint is on the table, and the parts to be corroborated have been, the call to the president of ukraine, the idea that the white house does put some documents in a more secret high-security server, conversations with, say, salman on there, with putin in there. if someone starts talking on the question of impeachment, look in the history books, that's how it works. senator marco rubio says, the president can do things i don't agree with, that's why we have an election. rick scott also from florida. would i say things the way he says them? no, i don't. let him be president. leave it up to the voters. ron johnson, it's just the president being president trump.

john from new york, if i were president, i wouldn't have done that. if that's your position as the republicans, there will someday be a democratic president. maybe it will be in a year and a half, maybe it will be in four years, maybe eight years. so the official position of the republican party is to say, it's okay to do what he did in that phone call. it's okay to have a president run around the world doing foreign phone calls. anybody in the united states congress who has not read this by now should resign. i'm sorry, no, we punish our kids if they don't do their homework. your kids get failing grades if they don't do their homework. it's 15 pages if you want to read the call from ukraine and the whistleblower complaint. if you haven't read it by now, get another job. >> they're strategically refusing to do their homework because congress is on a two-week break. they want to see how public opinion breaks down. the president's approval rating,

i think, is 90% with republicans, 93% at this point disapprove of the inquiry. they're afraid to break with the president. they always are. one senior republican source close to mcconnell says there is not a single vote at this point for removing the president from office. >> facts change, things change, climates change, moods change. here's one of the republicans. i have several on my list to watch closely. here's john thune. i'm not a fan in many ways of how the president goes about this. i would much prefer he not raise an issue like that with a foreign leader. it forces all of us to take a deep breath and just wait to see where the facts lead. i've watched someone like senator thune, senior member. i watched the retired alexander from tennessee who want to know.

there are a lot more than president trump who should watch this thing out. >> think about the position the republicans are in. they don't want to go too far out on a limb criticizing president trump, because so far in the past things seem to hit president trump and back right off. he has not been brought down whether it's by the mueller investigation or by "access hollywood," so to go too far and abandon him at a time like this would be putting yourself in political peril. but there are these older members, maybe old school instituti institutionalists who are more concerned about what this means for the future. they're going to start saying things like, we need to investigate this more fully, i wish he hadn't said this, i wish he hadn't done this, but the reality for republicans is their party will accept a lot of what president trump does. so if they can afford to get reelected without a majority of the republican party, good for

them. but a lot of republicans cannot. >> it's a great point as well for those republican senators up in 2020 that have to win in more states. next up, the kremlin has a related wish list to all of this. it wants his calls with the white house kept secret.

parts of me i didn't even know. i find out i'm 19% native american, specifically from the chihuahua people. what?! that's... i find that crazy. it traces their journey in the mid-1800s from central mexico to texas. learning about the risks they took for a better life... ...it gives me so much respect and gratitude. it just shed so much light in my past that i never even would've known was there. 20 million members have connected to a deeper family story. order your kit at ancestry.com. why accept it frompt an incompyour allergy pills?e else. flonase sensimist. nothing stronger. nothing gentler. nothing lasts longer. flonase sensimist. 24 hour non-drowsy allergy relief they give us excellent customer otservice, every time.e. our 18 year old was in an accident. usaa took care of her car rental, and getting her car towed. all i had to take care of was making sure that my daughter was ok.

if i met another veteran, and they were with another insurance company, i would tell them, you need to join usaa because they have better rates, and better service. we're the gomez family... we're the rivera family... we're the kirby family, and we are usaa members for life. get your auto insurance quote today. should always be working harder. that's why your cash automatically goes into a money market fund when you open a new account. just another reminder of the value you'll find at fidelity. open an account today.

topping our political radar today, ukraine's anti-corruption bureau confirming today it is investigating activity at a gas company that previously employed joe biden's son hunter. but that agency also clarifying it is only examining activity prior to hunter biden's employment there. we know, of course, thanks to the release of that white house phone call, president trump asked ukraine's president to look into that, including biden's effort to remove a prosecutor who had previously investigated the company. hunter biden was on the board of directors. today making clear the investigation is about time before hunter biden was involved. the kremlin today saying it hopes washington will not release any details of any phone calls between president trump and president putin. the spokesman made that comment in response to a question about the release of president trump's conversation with ukraine's president. he said such calls are technically top secret, but he did note that both countries

agreed to release information about that call. pompeo meets with the russian foreign minister at the u.n. he supported attacks on its own people. he also answered this question about rudy giuliani's efforts moving around ukraine looking for dirt on joe biden. >> mr. secretary, were you being briefed about rudy giuliani's efforts with the state department on ukraine? >> when we come back, i want to talk during the hour about washington's view on impeachment. how about yours?

improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur.

haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. time to get in a tree, nock an arrow, and disappear. this is what you prepared for. he's moving more in daylight and whenever you can, you'll be hunting dawn to dusk. this is what you live for. it's your season. so hurry in to bass pro shops and cabela's to stock up now on all your opening day essentials at big savings. it's the outdoor traditions sale at bass pro shops and cabela's. your adventure starts here. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. but we're also a company that controls hiv, fights cancer, repairs shattered bones, relieves depression, restores heart rhythms, helps you back from strokes, and keeps you healthy your whole life.

from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. . as washington prepares what looks inevitable, impeachment by the house, a poll shows the country equally divided. 49% say yes, look into impeachment, 48% say no. that's a little divided from the pro impeachment camp. if you look a few weeks back, it's a smaller number. >> it shows the country is basically divided in half, but the majority of the country up to this point has said no. that's what pelosi is looking at

saying, guys, this is going to be so divisive. now she thinks they have a chance to flip that number in the other direction just because the evidence that they have is so directly tied to the president. it's literally black and white on paper now. >> they think it's easier to explain than the idea of collusion, this and that in the mueller report. as we watch it play out, a shift in the democrats running for the nomination. tulsi gabbard was the one democrat not in favor of an impeachment inquiry. she said, quote, after looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with ukraine's president, the whistleblower complaint, the inspector general memo and president trump's comments about the issue, unfortunately, i believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. >> one thing democrats always under estimated was their ability to move the polls by

coming out with this. there was a great majority that said if the house doesn't approve of impeachment, we do not it. now they do. >> the numbers are not static. they can move if there is information about what is going on. i think in this case, unlike a lot of the things that have come before it, as you put it, it's in black and white. it directly implicates the president. i also think it touches on something that i think most people intuitively will look at and say, that doesn't seem right. asking a foreign government to help investigate your political opponent for a lot of people who are in the middle of the political spectrum is just going to strike them that is, at the very least, going to warrant further investigation. >> both parties have a challenge in this assuming both parties stay where they are. democrats say, yes, let's move forward with an impeachment inquiry and then impeachment. if they backed off now, if the republicans don't crack, a, you have to keep your base.

keep the democrats for impeachment, the republicans who are against impeachment, but then you have that fight. it would be interesting to see if other polls back it out. a few days ago it showed independents were not in favor of this. they were more in favor of we litigate these things in election. >> there were a lot of democrats in favor of impeachment who argued in the last few months that not just democrats, but independents as well were for it because if they exposed what the case was in the evidence that they had, perhaps the people not motivated by partisanship, they would know what the fine lines would be. >> in this poll, independents

shift towards favoring impeachment, 44%. brianna keilar starts right now. have a great afternoon. i'm brianna keilar live from washington's cnn headquarters. we begin with the white house admitting a key claim in the whistleblower report of president trump asking a foreign president to dig up dirt on joe biden and his son. lawyers say they did direct that the phone call between trump and the ukranian president be filed in a separate server system. the whistleblower describes how white house officials had intervened to lockdown all the records of the july 25th phone call with ukraine. that lockdown allegedly included moving the word-f-w