good evening. new reporting tonight on when the public will get to see public impeachment hearings on who may testify as well as the drafting of articles of impeachment against the president. there are new signs tonight his defenders still have few good answers on the actual substance of the ukraine affair, even though behind the scenes they are reportedly troubled by it. cnn's jamie gangel is citing republican sources saying senior diplomat william taylor's testimony was a game changer that's still reverberating. privately, that is. publicly for the second straight day republicans for the most part avoid the directly confronting or discussing the evidence he gave, instead objected the to the way the hearings are being conducted. anything it seems but the actual details from this career, nonpartisan civil servant and west point graduate and vietnam war vet who detailed with notes

and was handpicked for the job by the president's secretary of state. the emerging picture painted of president trump is not a good one. today however it was a different story. >> right now we're hearing one side of the story, and until we get the full picture, i think i said this yesterday, it's hard to draw any conclusions. >> you said the picture painted at present wasn't great. >> based on the reporting of what you guys were saying about it, but i went back yesterday and actually read what was said, and there is, there's a kind of secondhand information, a lot of sort of hearsay. not hearsay but in the sense that it was passed on, it wasn't a direct conversation. >> a short time later senator thune had lunch with the president and other republican senators, including lindsey graham, who raise the same hearsay objection as senator thune. >> did he talk to the president? >> he talked to ambassador sondland who talked to the

president. >> that's hearsay. >> the word hearsay has been getting a workout. it was the first line of defense when reports surfaced of the whistle-blower who set this story in motion. he had no direct knowledge, they said, just secondhand hearsay. >> that person never saw the report, never saw the call, never saw the call. heard something. >> we're not going to try the president of the united states based on hearsay. >> he had no firsthand knowledge, he heard something from someone. >> if i understand it right, it's from someone who had secondhand knowledge. >> he says he heard this from other people. >> the complaint relied on hearsay evidence. >> it's always, i talked to somebody else, it's hearsay. >> the secondhand account of something someone didn't hear isn't along good as the best evidence of what was actually said. >> that's what they're looking for right now. hearsay or not but mainly the white house's own transcript of the president's call with ukraine's president substantiated every key point

that the whistle-blower raised. but hey, that was last month, who remembers last month? senator graham today introduced a measure condemning the house impeachment process is taking to the senate floor today complete with poster boards and bullet points. keeping them honest, it is basically a stunt. the measure is nonbinding and one of his central objections today on the secrecy of proceedings so far rings kind of hollow, take a look at his views on testimony and secrecy back when he was a congressman leading the effort to impeach bill clinton. >> the depositions i think will determine whether or not we go forward with hearings. i think it's a very smart thing to do, to depose these people and find out what they've got to say, not drag this thing out unnecessarily. it's going to end by the end of the year. >> which oddly enough is pretty much what the democrats are doing. sources telling cnn they're now planning to transition to public hearings by the middle of next month and releasing transcripts and bringing back some of the witnesses they've already deposed behind closed doors. which gives today's resolution, like yesterday's storming of the secure hearing room, more than a

whiff of just theater. as to yesterday's stunt, which delayed but didn't prevent defense department official deposition. republican on the appropriate three committees, they were not in any way kept out of this. in fact, we've learned since that directly from a republican participant just how far from the truth that notion is. congressman mark meadow is telling the "washington post" that each side in this alternates questioning in set time blocks and there's no limit provided for the number of questions each side can ask the witnesses. lawmakers and aides telling cnn democrats and republicans have traded off hour-long, 45-minute rounds, until all of their questions have been exhausted. in other words, both sides have equal time. and plenty of it. we've also learned the names of three congress members who stormed the hearing yesterday, with great bravado, they were actually on the proper committees that gave them the right to be in the room that

they allegedly were breaking into. that's where we are. those folks are fred keller of pennsylvania, ron wright of texas, and carol miller of west virginia. none of them needed to storm anything. a spokesman for congressman keller telling us he was acting in solidarity with noncommittee members who were not allowed in, to show support and believes all members of congress, republican or democrat, deserve to know all the facts. congressman miller sent a statement which did not explain at all why she stormed the skiff that she was perfectly entitled to be in. joining us, two republican former congressmen, cnn political commentators, john duffy and charlie dent. congressman duffy, appreciate you being here, let's start with you. if republicans don't think the president did anything wrong

here, shouldn't they focus on that rather than focusing on the process, which as you know is in the early stages, like a grand jury isn't open, it then is going to move to open hearing? >> the congress is not a grand jury, so the concern with the process is the fact that the american people don't have all the evidence. and so what happens is -- >> right, but it's going to be released -- the transcripts will be released -- >> hold on let me tell you why we're concerned about it. we don't have it, so in secret style, schiff has these hearings, then spoon feeds leaks out to the media. then democrats come and talk about it and there's almost a public trial in the media of president trump without all the facts. if you have a different process where every american, every member of congress, all the media, get to see all of the testimony, then we can all judge it for ourselves instead of looking at what adam schiff wants us to see and convict the president on evidence that we haven't seen and do not have. >> let me ask about that. first of all, you're implying

only democrats leak, which as we know, that's not the case. and certainly republicans have leaked things that were said in this. and opening statements have been released. also full transcripts are going to be released. and they're going to call back these people for public hearings. so how is this like a soviet-style star chamber? >> the reason we go to the skiff is when you have classified information. on financial services i was the chair of the oversight committee and we have public hearings. why would adam schiff have closed hearings? if you're not confident in the evidence, you close it down and foon feed the media and the american people. if you're confident and you have smoking guns, you open it up and let us all look at it. if you look at clinton and nixon, there's open process that we all get to see, it's not closed door. >> congressman dent? what about that? >> i don't think the process is ideal either, and they should be

a little more transparent. i do understand why they have -- they take that position sometimes behind closed doors. i was chairman of the ethics committee, we did all our proceedings behind closed doors because of personnel matters. at the end of the day, this isn't about process and procedure. if the facts aren't on your side, if the policy isn't on your side, you argue process and procedure. that's what's happening here. because let's face it, the substance of these allegations are very serious, and that bill taylor testimony yesterday or his opening statement is very compelling. and it basically is pointing out there's a quid pro quo, aid was withheld until -- it was being withheld until he made a public statement, it was being withheld unless he was going to dig up dirt. i mean, this is really bad. this is wrong. you cannot use your federal office to dig up dirt on your political opponent, even without the quid pro quo. >> congressman duffy? >> charlie, if you've spent time in a courtroom, you don't let

people give an opening statement and convict them on the opening statement. >> this is not a courtroom. >> the credibility -- >> as you said, it's not a grand jury, this is not a courtroom. >> this is a political process, not a legal process. >> right, so with the political process, you're trying to judge the president on an opening statement when you haven't heard the 10 hours of testimony and the cross examination. >> which is why he's going to be called back and the transcript is going to be released. so i don't understand -- >> the problem is that there's people like charlie who are out here trying to convict the president based on the leaks. if everyone was silent, if there was no leaks, just depositions -- >> i'm not buttoned down -- >> if we didn't have information, that's one thing. >> the transcript wasn't leaked. the opening statements, those are released. >> i'm not trying to convict anybody. i want to get the facts. >> what about adam schiff and his narrative gets leaked out, so -- when you don't have the evidence it's hard to say, we're going to convict the president when i haven't heard all the testimony. that's what's frustrating for

republicans. if democrats were smart they'd bring republicans in, make them part of the process -- >> congressman dent, republicans, just to be clear, are part of the process. there is an equal number of republicans in that skiff yesterday who could ask questions. as mark meadows said publicly, they can ask as many questions as they want, they have equal time, they go as long as they want. that's the benefit of having private hearings at this point, and that will then go public. i want to play some of the former congressman trey gowdy said about public hearings. >> public hearings are a circus, that's why i don't like to do them, it's a freak show. the private interviews are much more constructive. >> congressman dent, are they more constructive? >> well, having conducted investigations on the ethics committee, and trey gowdy served on that committee, he was a very constructive member of that committee. and i found that sometimes in

those private settings, behind closed doors, we could have very candid conversations among members. and again, speaking -- the ethics committee is a little different, dealing with personnel matters, everything is behind closed doors. i found because we could operate that way, sometimes you couldn't distinguish the republicans from the democrats because we were just trying to get the facts, get the truth, before we made a judgment whether to sanction somebody or exonerate them. so there are advantages to behind closed doors. that said, i think at some point these hearings have to come out into the public. and i think the transparency -- i think the democrats should also have a vote on the inquiry, even though they don't need to. i would do it just as a matter of form, and frankly take away a talking point from the president. >> first of all, i agree, there's a time and place to have behind the scenes interviews done by lawyers and members of congress. but the whole investigation thus far shouldn't be behind closed doors. i think if democrats open it up, let us all have the respect, the american people, members of

congress, see the testimony, make judgments for themselves, not based on just leaks but based on the actual testimony, i think the american people would be better off, democrats would be better off, the president would be better off. this would be a process we could all buy into. but when you close it off, then you get those process arguments because we don't have all the information require think we're entitled to, we deserve all the information. charlie does, you do, i do, so do the american people. so i hope adam schiff opens it up and we can have a transparent process that's american style, not soviet style. >> i don't think you'll find anybody in the press who does not want public hearings so that we can all hear all the details. >> that's right. >> whatever side of the political aisle you're on, it's going to be fascinating. congressman duff, edgar renteria man dent, thank you. breaking news about how close democratic lawmakers are sitting down to drafting articles of impeachment. also a member of the house intelligence committee talking about what happened yesterday with the storming of the skiff, what's really going on day to

day, as colleagues hear testimony. the white house's other defense tactic, blaming it all on what they call the deep state, what used to be called nonpartisan professionals doing their duty and following the rules. former director of national chelgs james clap where we continue. when you look at the world, what do you see? we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

to help you grow and protect your wealth. i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro. motor? nope. not motor? it's pronounced "motaur."

for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. for those who were born to ride, my moderate to severe i ulcerative colitis.ing but i realized something was missing... me. the thought of my symptoms returning was keeping me from being there for the people and things i love most. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira can help get, and keep, uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts so you could experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,

serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. breaking news on how far along democrats are in the impeachment process. talks are preliminary, but both staff and committee members have discussed the broad shape of what articles of impeachment may look like. one member who spoke with cnn on background said while there could be a few articles focused on larger transgressions, the accompanying report could be an opportunity to provide democrats room to include more specific violations including emoluments violations or alleged

obstruction of justice from the mueller report. joining us is house intelligence committee member jackie speier. what can you tell us about an overall timeline? house majority whip james clyburn says the inquiry could be wrapped up between thanksgiving and christmas. is that realistic? >> i don't think any of us really know yet what the timeline is. i think we're moving as expeditiously as we can. we've had three weeks on the job and have had some outstanding interviews with witnesses i'm sure will be called back at public hearings. you know, i'm reminded that during the benghazi committee, there were 107 private closed-door interviews that took place. and they didn't have their first public hearing until four months in. so if you're comparing what we're doing with the party inquiry versus the benghazi committee work which was held and controlled by the republicans, we're on a fast track. >> obviously as you said, one of the criticisms from republicans

that the inquiry's conducted behind closed doors even though the republicans who were able to ask questions just like democrats, chairman schiff has said there will be public hearings. what has to happen before those begin? is there some threshold that has to be met? more people are supposed to be interviewed next week. >> i think it's just waiting for these final sets of interviews. i can't say whether there's four or eight. i don't know that. but i can suggest that after we finish this next tranche of interviews we will be in position to have open hearings. and i am as interested as chairman schiff is and i think the democratic caucus to making sure that there is a very fulsome, open hearing discussion on what is a really serious issue. and that's why the republicans aren't talking about the actual corpus, that is, the conduct of the president trying to get a foreign government to interfere in our election on his behalf.

that's the crime and that's not what they want to talk about. >> do you have a sense of if it's going to be old witnesses that have already appeared that would be called to publicly testify? that seems unlikely, i would imagine. who actually makes the selection? >> the selection will probably be made by the chairman, mr. schiff. but i'm certain that we will all be able to weigh in as to who we think are appropriate witnesses to lay out the case. and let's also remind everyone that not only was this a whistle-blower who came forward and provided a very comprehensive complaint. the president then corroborated it himself by releasing the summary of his telephone conversation with president zelensky. >> it's interesting that the republicans have been using the same hearings argument that they used against the whistle-blower against taylor. obviously there are going to be more people, scott morrison from

the national security council staff, i think senior official from the national security council, who is going to come next week. according to taylor will back up some of the things that taylor had said. but you don't hear them talking about hearsay anymore. you don't hear them talking about the whistle-blower anymore. they're now saying it's all hearsay from taylor. >> and the other thing that's quite interesting is, if you go to mr. volker who was the special envoy to the ukraine, he then released, because they were on his personal cell, his text messages from whatsapp. again, we saw evidence to corroborate that in fact money to ukraine that had been appropriated by congress was being withheld because the president wanted his pound of flesh from ukraine in terms of an investigation. placing the country at great risk and all the people and all the soldiers who were fighting there.

so it's really a, in my view, a very clear case. >> congresswoman speier, appreciate your time, thank you very much. perspective on the breaking news and another day of republicans attacking the process. dana bash, the argument from republicans that this is all happening in secret, logically that is just -- there are republicans in there, it's not as if it's all democrats, a cabal of democrats with witnesses. public hearings, though, clearly democrats want those as much as anybody. >> yeah, because -- >> they believe it supports the charges against the president. >> the whole argument that the democratic leadership makes is that the best thing for them is to have as much public support behind what they're doing as possible. and you can't get that unless you demonstrate your case in public. that's just kind of a basic fact. what is striking and one of the

reasons why still it is -- people are disgusted by the place where i live, washington, d.c., is because there is always amnesia when another party takes control. what she said about benghazi is true. republicans did act in private as they investigated before they went in public. and that is exactly what democrats are doing. having said that, republicans understand how critical it is, for as much as democrats want to increase public support for impeachment, republicans want to decrease it, which is what they're attacking the process, because they think it works. >> it is true that taylor's testimony, as dramatic and persuasive as the opening statement was, it is mostly hearsay. as far as the president is concerned. he didn't interact with the president, he interacted with people who interacts with the president. >> just as the whistle-blower didn't interact, from what we know. >> correct. hearsay evidence is admitted every day in courtrooms in

america, and this isn't a courtroom. but it is true that taylor did not have one-on-one contact with the president, and that's something that you're going to hear from republicans. and i think it's a legitimate point to raise. it doesn't discredit him as a witness, he doesn't claim to have spoken to the president, but i just think it's worth -- you know in fairness, pointing that out. >> david gergen, when you hear the republicans making the arguments about the process, is there validity there, in your opinion? >> anderson, i believe for some time that right from the beginning, the democrats could have played this differently and should have. i think they should have voted up front to have this impeachment process go forward as has happened the last two impeachments like this, and i think it's important, it would have been helpful if they had been able to call witnesses of their own for this, this period of the process, when everything is secret. and i think as they go forward, the democrats ought to be looking for ways to send a

message to the public that this is a fair game. having said that, having said that, i think it's also very, very clear that the republicans are overstating their criticisms of the way this is going on. this is being played by the benghazi rules, essentially, which the republicans themselves came up with. if you go back to bill clinton, before they went to impeachment, before the process started, there was ken starr. a lengthy process of inquiry that was done behind closed doors. and built that up so that when they handed it to the committee, a lot was already done. similarly the nixon case. there were watergate hearings that got huge publicity. there were also lots of private investigations that went on before the judiciary committee actually started writing articles of impeachment. so there is a -- it's worth remembering that. i think that the republicans, as i say, are overstating their case. and on the hearsay question,

listen, we don't need hearsay, we have the tape, we have the transcript. what taylor has said is helping us understand the environment and what the network and what people around the president believed they were doing. >> stand by, we have breaking news and then more on the key testimony expected next week in the impeachment inquiry that could make the white house pretty uneasy, details in a moment. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? says they can save you dollars. which makes it hard to believe,

especially coming from a talking lizard. cheerio! esurance is built to save you dollars. and when they save dollars, you save dollars. so get a quote. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. man: how can i deliver superior long-term results? it begins with a distinctive approach to managing money. that for over 85 years has focused on keeping confidence up when markets are down. an approach where portfolio managers work well independently. and even better together. who don't just invest, but are personally invested. can i find a proven approach designed to deliver results? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information. audrey's on it. eating right?

on it! staying active? on it. audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance is the number 1 prescribed pill in its class. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. that means jardiance can help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. plus, jardiance lowers a1c and it could help you lose some weight. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack?

on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. the type 2 diabetes pill that's on it. learn more at jardiance.com the type 2 diabetes pill that's on it. here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

more breaking news, we touched on it, promises to be big. sources telling cnn when a top white house russia and europe adviser from the national

security council testifies before house impeachment investigators, he's going to corroborate key elements of william taylor's testimony. this could be the first such testimony from directly inside the west wing. it could bring this all that much closer to the president himself. cnn's mona roger joins us with late details. this is the national security senior official morris. what are you learning about it? >> we do expect tim morrison will cooperate, will appear before house investigators next week. he's asking for a subpoena, he will get a subpoena undoubtedly, he will testify. what we are told, our team is told from multiple sources, that is he's expected to corroborate a key -- key elements of bill taylor's testimony from earlier this week when the top diplomat from ukraine had testified that the president had withheld vital military aid in exchange for pushing for an investigation or the ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation into the bidens. morrison's name is important

because he is cited about 15 times throughout that opening statement from bill taylor. bill taylor had referenced multiple conversations that they had about why the aid had been withheld, concerns that the diplomats had that taylor had, about the aid being withheld. and at one point, one of the conversations, morrison told taylor about a conversation that the president had with his top ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, in which the president had asked, had said that the president of ukraine needed to go publicly to the microphones and say they were investigating the bidens, also saying they were investigating 2016 election interference. that's something according to taylor's testimony that morrison had some concerns about. we do expect there to be some corroboration of taylor's testimony. we are also told he does not believe that the administration necessarily had done anything wrong with all of this, and we believe that his testimony, from what we are told, will have some

nuance about whether there was any quid pro quo or not, so he may not raise as many alarms as taylor. we'll ultimately wait and have to see. we do expect -- we are told he's taken notes about his past conversations and those notes will also provide a basis of his testimony. but of course this comes at a key time as the impeachment investigators are trying to figure out exactly what happened here. here's an individual who is a key person in the white house currently serving in the white house who will testify about all these matters. the question though ultimately that republicans will raise is whether or not he has firsthand knowledge of any of this. they're already pushing back on bill taylor's testimony saying he didn't have firsthand knowledge of it. we are hearing republicans and the white house are concerned about this upcoming testimony. >> is the white house going to block this? you said he asked for a subpoena. >> we're told from his attorney that he's informed the house committees that he will appear if there is a subpoena, and i asked his attorney whether or not he's definitely going to appear, and she said currently

yes. so at the moment it appears that he is. the white house has told other people within the administration not to appear. state department officials and the like, people currently serving, they have listened to the subpoenas and not the instructions from the administration. so we expect probably the white house to urge him not to appear, but what they will ultimately do to stop him is unclear. but at the moment all expectations are that he's going to deliver testimony that will at least back up this key u.s. diplomat's account. >> all right, raja maughan new, thank you very much. back to our team, jeff, significant? >> yes, because one of the core issues here is, was aid withheld because the president wanted dirt on joe biden? and this official is someone who was involved in the decision to withhold aid. now i don't noah he's going to say. we'll have to wait and see. but to the extent that story can be fleshed out or refuted, that's good -- i mean, look, i think any reasonable person should want more evidence.

should want to know whether the story is, you know, is fully told and whether the president and the administration did anything wrong. certainly this is something you'd want to hear from. >> certainly john bolton, obviously, the national security adviser, is somebody they would like to hear from as well. >> absolutely. they've been pretty quiet about that, how they're going to deal with john bolton, and john bolton himself has been eerily quiet, it makes you wonder how close the book deal is or whether or not there's more coming out. i don't want to say that facetiously. he certainly did not leave on good terms at all with the president. but you're absolutely right. this is, though, one of those questions about private versus public. these are depositions. they're trying to build a case just like you do in a court of law. and let's just say that morrison does corroborate what bill taylor said about the core issue, about whether or not the money was withheld -- >> that sondland had this conversation with ukrainian officials? >> exactly, which is all about spelling out, this is why we're withholding --

>> which by the way, sondland supposedly in his testimony said he didn't remember those -- any kind of conversation like that. >> exactly. but what the democrats want in order to make their case publicly is not just these officials to lay it out in private, but ultimately when we get to the public hearings for somebody like morrison or others to be a john dean, to be willing to come forward and say in public, yes, this happened, and i didn't think it was right. that is a moment that if they don't have, it will be easier for republicans to poke holes in it. >> just in terms of the process, the idea of transcripts, adam schiff has said that transcripts would be released from even the skiff area. >> correct. >> do we know a timeline on that at all? >> i think they want to do it fairly soon. the most important thing that has to happen is classified information review. they have to take out anything that's classified. but it's not a grand jury. that shouldn't be all that difficult. >> david gergen, do you see the

white house suddenly deciding to try to stop morrison from testifying? >> i think they'll do everything they can to stop him. his testimony is significant, anderson. because taylor delivered this blockbuster testimony, but it's very much in conflict with sondland. and they need to call sondland back. then we're going to have a comparison between the two. to have morrison come in behind this and say taylor's got the right version here of the truth will really help to bolster the credibility and diminish the force of republican anti-arguments saying taylor, it's all secondhand, it doesn't matter, doesn't mean anything. morrison is really critical. as we've just heard in that 15-page statement, he's a key player. i've never heard of him, but suddenly you've got to get this guy up there to testify because he's really critical. >> can the white house stop him? manu asked morrison's attorney, he said currently, yes, he's going to appear. >> they can fire him.

>> would firing stop him from -- >> not necessarily, but they could threaten to fire him and he can back off. if he wants to testify -- >> what about if he works in the white house, executive privilege? not applicable? >> as i understand it, his story is not about conversations with the president. i suppose they could go to court and try to -- >> right, hearsay. >> right. you're learning. try to get an injunction to stop it. that seems extremely unlikely to me, i can't believe any court would do that in advance. you know, what's so interesting about how these hearings has unfolded, it has really become a test of conscience for these government officials. because it's quite clear the white house doesn't want anyone from the state department, anyone from the defense department, to testify. but they have testified. they have been subject to subpoena and they would have had to fight the subpoena. but, you know, they could have stretched it out and gone to court, and they haven't so far. and you know, fundamentally i think it's going to be up to morrison. >> david gergen, dana bash, thank you very much. jeff toobin is going to stay here because there's yet more

breaking news. cnn has learned attorney general william barr's probe into the intelligence and over gins of the 2016 trump russia investigation is now a criminal investigation. it's a big deal. joining us as well, former director of national intelligence james clapper. nt d? 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.

must be hot out there, huh? not especially. -[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking? gasoline. right, but i mean, what's in the cup? gasoline. [ slurping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

skip to the good part with walka-seltzer plus.de, now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

more breaking news, cnn's evan perez reports attorney general william barr's probe into the origins of the 2016 russia investigation has expanded into a criminal probe according to a person familiar with the matter. "the new york times"s reported this earlier tonight. here's a key passage, the move gives the prosecutor edge the power to subpoena witness testimony and documents to empanel a grand jury and file criminal charges. chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, retired general james clapper, also the author of "facts and fears: hard truths from a life in intelligence." why is this significant? >> as you quoted, once there's a criminal investigation the prosecutors have criminal process. they can get search warrants, they can get grand jury

subpoenas, they can bring people to a grand jury, it ratchets up the pressure on the people who are subjects of investigation. it's important to point out just because there is a criminal investigation doesn't mean any crime occurred, much less that specific people committed a crime. but for the people who have been the targets of what seems like a right-wing conspiracy theory, led by sean hannity and donald trump, it's got to be an unnerving experience to know that this is now ratcheted up to that level. >> and for those who believe that the justice department and attorney general barr in particular is essentially being a henchman for president trump, this will only reinforce that idea? >> when you consider all the legal issues facing the united states of america, the attorney general has traveled to italy and other places around the world on this, what seems to me wild goose chase, is really remarkable. but it shows how much this

obsession with showing that the russia investigation was somehow illegitimate in its inception has been a guiding principle of this justice department. >> director clapper, as the man who was there and oversaw the launch of the russia investigation, what do you make of this? >> well, very curious. presumably i guess i'm one of those under investigation. >> and you just heard about this? >> yes. just read the clip about 20 minutes ago. i found the timing interesting. given the increasing heat around the impeachment inquiry. and so the timing's interesting. i'll just let it go at that. and the other thing i wonder about is whether we're talking about the overall investigation of the russian -- reporting on the russian interference, or are

we talking about the counterintelligence investigation that was launched in july by the fbi, about potential engagement, collusion, whatever you want to call it, between russians and the trump campaign? what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this? >> do you have any idea what they might think may rise to the level of criminal offense? >> no, i don't. that's obviously an item of great interest to me. what is it that any of us did that would rise to the level of a criminal infraction? i just don't know. >> i can tell you what the theory has been is that there is this massfood character who works at a university in italy. the theory has been somehow the deep state, people in the cia, planted with him the idea that the russians were helping trump.

massfood told it to various campaign officials, george papadopoulos and others, it got back to the fbi, and that's what launched the investigation. the claim is that the deep state started this investigation. there's no evidence, as far as i'm aware, to support that hypothesis. it is clearly -- it is at this point just a right-wing fantasy. but that i think is the core allegation. >> if i might add to what jeffrey just said, i just make the point that that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in january of 2017 and briefed to president-elect trump and his team in trump tower on january 6th. so that -- those are, again, separate things. and that is a really far-fetched theory, in my view, that somehow

misfood was set up by the fbi to create this conspiracy that he was trying to generate the impression that the russians were in cahoots. >> one of the other big problems with this conspiracy theory is that mueller had two enormous indictments. one of the internet research agency, using social media out of st. petersburg to help the trump campaign. and the other one to hack the democrat dnc emails. those are, you know -- they haven't been proved because the defendants haven't shown up in court, but those have nothing to do with -- how do you say his name? misfood or any of that. this has never made any sense. >> cnn is reporting that last week, some witnesses have refused to be interviewed. so now that -- this will allow them to compel testimony, won't it? >> it will allow them to

subpoena them. you can always take the fifth if someone subpoenas you. >> so they could not testify? >> they could not, and now just to go ahead, they could give them immunity, force them to testify, so there are ways the government can try to compel someone to give testimony. in a criminal investigation, has more tools at its disposal than the inquiry, the status that it was before. >> jeff toobin, thank you. director clapper, thank you as well. not what we originally planned to talk about but you're certainly in the middle of this, so i appreciate you being on, thank you. the remarkable president trump had for kurds being driven by their homes in an invasion he essentially green lighted. ♪ no matter what life throws down ♪ roomba is up for the challenge. only roomba uses 2 multi-surface rubber brushes that powerfully clean up debris on all your floors.

and only the roomba i7+ system empties its bin into allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens. forget about vacuuming for months. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™ when ywhat do you see?orld, we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen,

before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you. sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce.

and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me-ow.

another busy night. let's check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo

prime time." a lot to choose from, chris. >> you oppose this president and you're in his party you're scum, anderson. that's what you are. stephanie grisham, yep, they deserve to be talked about that way. one of the things i'm doing with all my guests tonight on that side of the aisle as a point of civility, how we disagree matters. that is something that cannot stand, that cannot be approved. if you can't get past that point, i'll have no further discussion with anybody. if you can't own that we can't be that way with each other just on the basis of opposition, there's nothing else to talk about. on the point of substance, if this guy morrison who's still in the white house who was on the july 25th call is as expected corroborative of what taylor said, how can you say that nothing done here was wrong? not impeachable, not worthy of removal, just wrong. >> we'll be looking forward to it, chris. a lot to cover. about five minutes from now. up next having already taken credit for saving their lives president trump now has a suggestion for the kurds of northern syria facing turkish troops in their home territory. we'll read it to you word for word and show you why the kurds may not exactly be thrilled to

hear the president's advice. i...decided to take the dna test. and i...was...shocked. right away, called my mom, called my sisters. i'm from cameroon, congo, and...the bantu people. i had ivory coast, and ghana...togo. i was grateful... i just felt more connected... to who i am. greater details. richer stories.

and now with health insights. get your dna kit at ancestry.com. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah.

yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. yeah, i could see that. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, 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. it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

more tonight on ongoing syria crisis. president trump says he's had a conversation with the leader of the syrian kurds. "i really enjoyed my conversation with general mazloum abdi," the president said in a tweet. "he appreciates what i have done and i appreciate what the kurds have done. perhaps it is time for the kurds to start heading to the oil region." by saying that last part the president is in fact suggesting the kurds move far away from their traditional homelands, in effect ethnically cleansing themselves from the entire region and instead move hundreds

of miles away to a region dominated by arabs who may not exactly welcome them with open arms. military experts say the syrian democratic forces, a mixture of kurdish and arab fighters, do have a presence in that area. however, relocating the entire syrian kurdish population is something that has never been previously suggested. the president's tweet came after two defense officials told cnn that the pentagon is considering plans to deploy tanks to those oil fields. other officials said it is possible that lighter-weight armored vehicles like bradley or striker fighting vehicles could be sent because tanks could require an extensive number of troops to operate. the news continues. i want to hand it over to chris and "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." we have more breaking news on our watch. another one of the president's top guys is about to tell all. he could back up most damaging impeachment testimony to date. what does it mean? what do you say? let's get after. it. all right. here's what we have to get into tonight. bill taylor's testimony may be about to get some backup. a current white house official named mois i