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.

i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique good evening. the tone of this potentially very significant day in the impeachment proceeding was set early this morning as capitol hill and the white house braced to hear from the first witness who was actually on the multiple calls between president trump and ukraine's president zelensky. that witness, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, arrived on capitol hill in uniform, his body still carrying the shrapnel he received during an ied attack in iraq for which he received the purple heart. he expanded on what we know about the allegations involving military aid for ukraine. we know he did that because we

obtained his opening statement last night. we also know he was prepared to say that he witnessed a pressure campaign, what he called, quote, outside influencers promoting a false narrative of ukraine. here's what his opening statement said about the call between the two presidents. quote, i was concerned by the call. i did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a u.s. citizen. he added, quote, i realized that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the bidens and burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play. meantime republicans largely didn't want to talk about what lieutenant colonel vindman had to say, like literally didn't want to talk about it. listen to the question asked of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, and then listen to his answer. >> lieutenant colonel vindman says that what he heard on the president's call, that conversation with the ukrainian leader was so concerning that he worried that it might undermine u.s. national security. does it concern you? are you worried about the president's behavior at all? >> look, i'm not going to question patriotism of any of

the people who are coming forward. >> he ignored the question if you didn't notice. nevada republican congressman mark amodei did him one better, though. watch what happens when cnn's manu raju tries to ask him about some of the facts uncovered so far. >> the sub stance of the things that have come out is that the president asked for a public investigation into his rivals and also ukraine aid was being withheld. and bill taylor testified -- >> that's your conclusion. >> that's not my conclusion. i'm saying that's what come out. >> it's not a conclusion to me so we disagree. >> the president has asked for the ukrainians to investigate the bidens. is that okay? >> the president has asked for the whistle-blower complaint to go through the normal processes, and we've seen nothing of that. beyond that, when you say you've made the conclusion, you're a gifted guy because guess what, it isn't over and you already know what you think. >> the white house transcript that was released had president trump asking president zelensky

to open an investigation into the bidens. >> do you know they have plans to call the whistle-blower because -- >> you're not answering my question about the substance of the allegation. >> i disagree with your conclusion. it's a conclusion, not a question. >> i'm asking you about what's in the transcript. >> if you want to interview yourself, go right away. >> why don't you want to answer the question? is it okay for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate the bidens? >> why don't you do an interview instead of interviewing yourself. >> the president asked on the white house lawn, on the south lawn of the white house, the president asked china to investigate the bidens. is that okay? >> you know what? if you don't want to interview me, then interview yourself. >> i'm asking you a question. >> i don't understand. thanks for doing the best you could. >> where do these people come from? do you ever wonder that? president trump for his part went after the lieutenant colonel in a different way, saying over twitter, quote, supposedly according to the corrupt media, the ukraine call concerned today's never trumper witness. and how many more never trumpers will be allowed to testify about a perfectly appropriate phone

call when all anyone has to do is read the transcript? keeping 'em honest, there's no efrd whatsoever that lieutenant colonel vindman is a, quote, never trumper, whatever that means exactly. by the way, never trumpers are what the president also referred to as human scum. we do, however, know that he served presidents both republican and democrat over his distinguished two-decade career of service to this country. the president's defenders on tv took their attacks much farther in saying that lieutenant colonel vindman has dual loyalties to ukraine, where he was born, when it was part of the soviet union. one said vindman had an affinity for ukraine. another said he was simpatico of ukraine. john yu, a legal scholar, threw out the ward espionage. capitol hill republicans immediately pushed back on the characterization. congresswoman liz cheney called questioning vindman's patriotism, quote, shameful. for more, congressman eric swalwell joins us. congressman swalwell, how much more were you able to learn from

lieutenant colonel vindman today beyond what he said in his opening statement? >> good evening, anderson. the opening statement actually frankly says a lot. but we did, of course, learn more. and it was very powerful to see him enter that committee room in full military uniform, knowing this was a soviet-born immigrant, a wounded warrior, a reluctant witness in the sense that this is not what he was seeking to do, but it's what he thought was the right thing to do. >> lieutenant colonel vindman was the first witness who actually was on the call according to cnn's reporting. he testified that the call transcript that we've seen was mostly accurate. can you say what he said was inaccurate about it, or did he know -- did he have other details about it? >> we did hear more details about the call record, but, anderson, we're going to accept the call record that the white house put out, and that is damaging enough because if all the president did was ask the

ukrainian president to investigate his opponent, that would be a gross abuse of power. but he did more than that. he leveraged $391 million in taxpayer dollars over the ukrainian president as well as a white house meeting. so i don't think the white house call record is really in dispute. we see that as the president's confession. >> in his opening statement, vindman didn't specifically say that what he heard being talked about on that call or what was going on was a quid pro quo. can you say if he characterized it that way in his actual testimony? >> no, that opening statement describes the scene in the white house ward room with the ukrainians president right next to the situation room, which is also, you know, inappropriate. and he heard ambassador sondland tell the ukrainians that to get a white house meeting, that they needed to deliver on investigations into vice president biden. that, anderson, is a "this for that," in other words, a quid pro quo. a white house meeting to the

ukrainians was of paramount importance. again, there's other evidence, though, in our investigation that it wasn't on a white house meeting. as ambassador sondland told ambassador taylor, everything is on the table, not just the meeting, but also the security assistance. >> i also want to ask you about this reporting today that democrats accused republicans of trying to out the whistle-blower during vindman's deposition, which apparently, according to the reporting, let to you and your republican colleague, congressman mark meadows, getting into a heated exchange. can you say what happened? >> yeah. well, out of respect for my republican colleague, i'm not going to say which colleague that was. i will say i got pretty fired up when i saw republicans attempting to get the identity of the whistle-blower after repeatedly being told that that was not appropriate and hearing that the witness did not want to do that as he identified in his opening statement. we're going to protect the whistle-blower outside the hearing. we're going to protect the whistle-blower inside the hearing. anderson, as far as i'm concerned and as many as my colleagues are concerned, the whistle-blower pulled the fire alarm. once the first responders showed

up and saw the smoke and the flames and the president holding a can of gasoline and matches in his hands, you don't really need to hear from the person that pulled the fire alarm unless they have anything new to offer. and much of what the whistle-blower alleged has been corroborated. >> and am i correct in my reading of his opening statement, vindman said in the opening statement that not only was he not the whistle-blower, that he didn't know who the whistle-blower was. is that correct? >> yeah, anderson, he did not want to speculate as to what that person is. and that's because of the great security risk to the whistle-blower and the whistle-blower's family. that's why it's so irresponsible for my republican colleagues to seek to get the whistle-blower's identity for no other reason than to be punitive and to protect the president when, again, the president has himself, you know, admitted to the call record. and we don't really have a reason right now to hear from the whistle-blower, who has the right to remain anonymous by the way. >> we should point out we just heard vindman's testimony has

just ended for the day. "the wall street journal" tonight is reporting that the legal team representing the whistle-blower has received multiple death threats that have led to at least one law enforcement investigation. did that come up in today's hearing at all? >> i'm not going to go into the specifics of the hearing, anderson, but we on the committee are well aware of the threats that this whistle-blower faces because it comes from the very top, the tweets and the statements. >> congressman swalwell, i'm sorry. i just got to jump in. adam schiff is making a statement. i just want to play that live. >> -- the service that continues and today took the form of coming before our committees to bravely answer these questions. we hope that his example of patriotism will be emulated by others. i want to say also how deeply appalled i was at the pernicious attacks on him last night on fox, the suggestion that because he's of ukrainian origin that ep

has some dual loyalty. this purple heart recipient deserved better than that scandalous attack. i also want to say this because i've been asked questions about this all day as i go to vote and come back. the president would love to punish the whistle-blower. the president's comments and actions have jeopardized the whistle-blower's safety. the president's allies would like nothing better than to help the president out this whistle-blower. our committee will not be a part of that. we will not stand for that, and i would hope that more of my gop colleagues throughout the congress on both sides of the capitol would express their support for whistle-blowers who have the courage to come forward and expose wrongdoing. they have the right to remain anonymous. they certainly should not be subject to these kind of vicious attacks and other words and

actions that threaten their safety for doing their patriotic duty. and so we will make every effort to make sure that notwithstanding the president or his allies' desire to out and exact political revenge on this whistle-blower, that our committee is never used for that purpose. thank you. >> mr. schiff, is he worried about white house retaliation? >> that's adam schiff. i want to go back to congressman eric swalwell who is still with us. sorry to interrupt you like that, congressman. let me just wrap up with you by asking you last week you said there was, quote, direct evidence that very key witnesses in this case have talked to each other about their testimony. you didn't want these witnesses to manufacture alibis. this is obviously the lieutenant colonel vindman now leaving. that's a live picture right now on capitol hill. is there any rule, congressman swalwell, that says witnesses can't talk to each other at this phase in an inquiry?

>> in investigations, anderson, investigators would like to keep the information as a close hold. you don't want the witnesses to tailor their testimony to one another. you don't want them to cook up alibis. you want to get the unvarnished truth. we do have direct evidence that two relevant witnesses talked to each other before a witness testified. we'll be voting this week to allow our deposition transcripts to become public, and that will be seen very soon by the public. >> and are there any witnesses you believe have not been forthcoming who you want to have called back? >> we have a number of witnesses who have told one version of events about this, quote, irregular channel as ambassador taylor described, of president trump, rudy giuliani, and ambassador sondland trying to shake down the ukrainians. of course that's in contrast with what ambassador sondland said, but i'm going to reserve judgment on the truthfulness of all witnesses until we get to the end of this investigation. >> congressman swalwell, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. up next, more to talk about

including some highly anticipated depositions happening tomorrow and thursday. plus i'll talk with "new york times" columnist tom friedman about whether critics are correct and president trump made up details of the death of the former isis leader. the president said was, quote, whimpering and crying before he was killed. biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer

by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. (mom vo) it's easy to shrink into your own little world. especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age. (big sis) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sis) whoa... (big sis) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) the three-row subaru ascent. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us.

robinhood. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! i learned about myuse grandfather's life. on ancestry and it was a remarkable twentieth-century transformation. he did a lot of living before i knew him. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com motor? nope.

not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. can't imagine doing it any other way. this is caitlin dickerson from the new york times. this isn't the only case. very little documentation. lo que yo quiero estar con mi hijo. i know that's not true. and the shelters really don't know what to do with them. i just got another person at d.h.s. to confirm this. i have this number. we're going to publish the story.

moments ago, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman wrapped his day long testimony. there he is leaving a few moments ago. details of what he said are now coming out. "the wall street journal" is reporting that the whistle-blower's team has been receiving death threats. more testimony is expected this week in the impeachment inquiry. tomorrow a defense department official and two others with the state department are scheduled to testify. thursday's expected to be a big day. another person on that july phone call between the two presidents, national security aide tim morrison is scheduled to testify. also on friday, the senior adviser to acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, robert blair, is expected to give his deposition.

i want to talk about all this now with cnn's chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jeffrey toobin, zada bash and maggie haberman. maggie, i wonder what your sense of things is at the white house tonight after this latest testimony. >> so there was actually a fair amount of calm at the white house earlier today. i think that they recognized that vindman was going to be somebody whose credibility they had to attack in a different way, and we certainly saw that in ways that were condemned by adam schiff a second ago, but ways that questioned vindman's patriotism, ways that questioned his allegiance and what his actual goal was in testifying. they're looking at it as there is not a whole lot of new information as best as they can tell because we don't know what yet was said. but as best as they can tell from him going into it, they did not anticipate he was going to offer up a ton new information over the picture that house investigators already had. whether that's true remains to be seen when we learn more about

the transcript of today's testimony, we can find out. but, look, the white house is looking at this as this is a single event. we know basically the contours of it, and they are going to hope that public opinion doesn't get swayed based on more details. there is something dramatic about watching somebody come in in full dress uniform who has served the country in iraq and at a certain point, i think that the white house has to be careful that those attacks don't backfire on them. >> jeff, the fact that lieutenant colonel vindman was on that july 25th call obviously, you know, is critical. it's the first time they've heard from somebody who was actually listening in on the call. and in his opening statement, he said he was, quote, concerned by what the president said, that he thought it undermined u.s. national security. it does not -- the oepgs statement at least didn't say quid pro quo, and it's not clear if he actually said that during the testimony. does that matter? >> well, i think what's so interesting about his reaction in the moment was that he thought the president's behavior

was outrageous even without knowing whether there was a quid pro quo. he thought the mere act of the president trying to get this investigation going by the government of ukraine for his -- that is, president trump's political benefit -- that alone was enough for him to go to the lawyers and say this is wrong. it just shows how this sort of quid pro quo issue has become kind of be-all and end-all of everything, and it seems to have been proven by other evidence. but i think what's so interesting about this is that even without proof of whether there was a responsible, this person, who is hardly a hysteric and hardly a, you know, critic of the president since he worked for the president, he was outraged by the offer alone. >> well, and dana, not only did the president make that offer or

that request on the phone call, i mean he's now done it on the -- you know, at the white house on camera, not only to ukraine but also to china, asking them to investigate the bidens as well. >> right. and he did that in part to normalize the behavior that he had on the call and to make it seem like it's no big deal, like this happens all the time. but this is a very classic, clear-cut example of how when you have a member of the military, just as maggie said, somebody who came in dressed as he is, as a lieutenant colonel, and we know that he walked in with shrapnel still in his body from the attack that he was under while serving america in the iraq war, and was hurt by a roadside bomb. the fact that he -- you know, yes, he is a human being, and maybe he has some partisan

impulses deep down, but he is a trained soldier, and was defending the country that he thought drove him to raise concerns when he heard this call realtime because it is just not the right thing to do. and even republicans have said this, for a president to ask another foreign leader for political dirt on his domestic opponent. >> anderson, just looking ahead, the intelligence committee is going to hold public hearings. that's what today's announcements were basically about. it seems very likely to me that lieutenant concern vindman will be one of those witnesses, so that picture that maggie was talking about will be even more vivid because people will be able to hear him speak as well as see him in his uniform. >> maggie, to your point earlier, though, about the president perhaps needing to be concerned about going too far in attacks on him, he refers to him now in tweets today as a never

trumper even though there's, a, no evidence of what his, you know, political beliefs are and military personnel come from lots of different different political beliefs and serve the constitution. you know, the never trumpers are the people that the president and his white house spokesperson, you know, say should be referred to as human scum. >> never trumper has gone from being an actual thing, which it was in 2016 in the election, to donald trump's version of anyone who doesn't like -- who criticizes me or doesn't agree with me or might take issue with my policies or my behavior in office, they are a never trumper. you are right, there is no evidence that this person was a never trumper, other than the president saying that on his twitter feed. so far based on what we've seen from the testimony, vindman, who talked a lot about patriotism and about his service based on the opening statement, is reluctant to join the president in turning this into an up or down referendum on the president as opposed to his conduct.

this president has been pretty successful in defining people as up or down against him over the last three years. we shall see if he succeeds here. but, again, i do think his credentials in the military and his displaying them as he walked through the capitol, i think, is going to make that harder. >> yeah, maggie haberman, thank you. jeff toobin, dana bash. just ahead, conservative commentators denigrate lieutenant colonel vindman and his background even before his testimony, one likening his actions to espionage. details ahead. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car, that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us. that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪

of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, this piece is talking yeah?. so what do you see? i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service, and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions.

and i see it with zero commissions on online trades. i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪

i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique recapping our breaking news, the day long testimony of a national security aide who witnessed the july phone call between president trump and the president of ukraine just ended.

when i say witnessed, heard the call. details of his testimony just now coming out. we touched on the background and on the attacks against lieutenant colonel alexander vindman at the beginning of the program, but here's a lot more to know. there's a lot more to know. he and his twin brother came to the united states when they were 3 years old. he joined the army back in 1999 and has had a distinguished career. he served in iraq as we mentioned. a source says he still carries shrapnel in his body from an ied attack there for which he earned a purple heart. still he was denigrated and pounced on by conservative commentators as soon as the news broke that he would be testifying today in that closed door session. here's fox news host laura ingraham and her guest, former justice department lawyerjohn yu last night. >> here we have a u.s. national security official who is advising ukraine while working inside the white house, apparently against the president's interest and usually they spoke in english.

isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story? >> i find that astounding and, you know, some people might call that espionage. >> espionage. and on this network earlier today, former republican congressman and cnn political commentator sean duffy claiming vindman was selfishly advocating for the place where he was born. >> he is a former ukrainian. he wants to make sure the taxpayer money goes in military aid to the ukraine. >> i'm sorry. why does it matter where he was born? >> i'm going to explain that to you. >> he's an active duty military member, an american who was awarded the purple heart. >> you know what? i'm of irish descent. i still love the irish, and he has an affinity probably for his homeland. >> by the way, he came here when he was 3. some perspective from mike shields, former chief of staff for the republican national committee and max boot, "washington post" columnist and cnn global affairs analyst. >> mike, i'm wondering what you

make of some folks on the television at night are saying. >> look, i don't agree with going after someone because of where they were born, and he was hired. he speaks ukrainian. he was hired on that desk because he has should expertise in it. i think the real issue is what his testimony said today. first of all, his testimony said that the transcript that president trump released and his testimony matched. so we already know what was happening on the phone call. i think there's a really, really deep issue here we should be having as a country right now, which is that there are people -- and i respect him for his duty. i'm a military brat. the fact that he served our country makes him a great american. but he's now in a policy making position apparently, and he disagrees with the president's policy on something. and i believe that that is at the heart of what this entire impeachment investigation is about, is that someone on the national security council didn't like something the president did, and now we're going to impeach him over it. and i think that is outrageous as well. i don't think he should question

his patriotism, but i don't think someone who files a legal complaint up through the legal office of the nsc. he said in his testimony, i thought it was inappropriate. with all due respect, thank you for your opinion. you think it's inappropriate. we'll handle it from here. we'll investigate it internally and people can look at that. instead it's leaked by someone who does seem to have more of a political motive. he went straight to adam schiff's staff. they got him a lawyer, and now we have an impeachment over it. i think this is a very dangerous precedent because one day we're going to have a democrat president -- >> the whistle-blower was following protocol. >> are we going to impeach every president that someone on the nsc disagrees with? >> but, mike, are you okay with a president asking a foreign country to investigate his domestic political rival because that's what vindman is saying he heard. >> right, which is in the -- which the president released in a transcript.

so here's the thing that i find interesting. democrats will only ever refer to this as a political opponent. i heard the president asking about the former vice president of the united states while carrying out his duties as a federal constitutional officer of the united states, may have been involved in corruption, and we would like to investigate that. and if you're not going to help us investigate it, then we need to wonder if you're our friend. elizabeth warren just said she would withhold aid from israel if they don't do what elizabeth warren wants when she's president. this is something presidents do all the time. >> okay. it's just weird that the only example of corruption the president, max, can come up with is, you know, something that happens to be about his domestic political rival. >> i mean this has nothing to do, anderson, with the legitimate security interests of the united states. this is all about donald trump helping donald trump, misusing the authority of his office for personal political gain, and we know there was a quid pro quo because bill taylor testified to it. gordon sondland testified to. it now you're hearing it from lieutenant colonel vindman.

what i wanted to say earlier, the attacks you're hearing on lieutenant colonel vindman i think are especially troubling and something i feel very personally as a fellow jewish immigrant from the former soviet union, someone who came here as a small boy in the 1970s just like lieutenant colonel vindman. when you have that kind of background, you tend to be more intensely patriotic. you believe in the ideals of this country. in his case, he fought for those ideals. he took shrapnel. he fought for our country. he bled for our country in iraq. and now you're seeing these right-wing trump acolytes defaming this american hero by claiming this dual loyalty canard. i mean that is -- you know, they are stooping so low to do that when clearly what he is doing is he is acting out of a sense of duty and patriotism as he explained in his opening statement because he was outraged by what was happening here and felt the need to blow the whistle because it was not a legitimate public policy he was seeing. this was a misuse of public authority. >> all right. i got to leave it there.

thank you. up exin, where is john bolton? no doubt house investigators would like to hear from president trump's former national security adviser. if he testifies, of course, what's not clear is what would he say. in a moment, i'll talk to someone who knows how bolton ticks, what his relationship was like with the president, may offer some clues. this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. little things can be a big deal. to severe psoriasis, that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

♪ 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.

again our breaking news tonight, key testimony just wrapping up from a national security council official who was on the president's july phone call with the president of ukraine and who said he had concerns. meanwhile, a lot of people on capitol hill would still like to hear from john bolton, president trump's former national security adviser. last month bolton resigned or was fired depending on who you ask. democrats called bolton an important witness. his lawyers are in talks about him possibly testifying. the question is will bolton, a republican hard-liner -- can he be and will he be a star witness for impeachment or protect the president? i'm going to try to get some insight from a staff writer for the new yorker magazine. his profile piece, how john bolton got the better of president trump was published last month. he joins me now. you spent time with bolton. based on what you know about him, do you think he will testify willingly, and if so,

what kind of a witness would he be? >> that's like the $64,000 question. i mean everybody in washington is wondering about that. i think, you know, on one hand he knows everything. he had total visibility and, you know, he left on bad terms with trump. trump said, i fired him. he said, nope, i quit before you could fire me. but on the other hand, he's always been -- you know, he's a partisan. he's always been a stalwart republican, and he came from fox news. he came from that whole thing. so it's really hard to tell. i think potentially what's so interesting is if he does testify to what other people have said that he did and he believed and he said, then i think it's potentially devastating for the president just because of his stature as one of the premier republicans in the republican establishment. >> what do you think it comes down to? i mean, again, it's impossible

to really get inside somebody's head and predict future behavior. but, you know, does he -- i mean does he want a post-white house career on fox news, and therefore does it matter to him the ramifications if he, in fact, was unhappy, as is the reporting, you know, and calling it -- referring to it as a drug deal, what the president was trying to do. >> yep. >> if that is the case, you know, is he such a patriot that, you know, he's appalled by that and testifies about it, or is there another -- you know, are there other factors in play? >> well, that's going to be the first question, the drug deal. bolton was quoted as saying, i don't want to be part of the drug deal that giuliani is cooking up. >> i think by the way, i made it sound as if it was in reference to the president. it was in reference to giuliani. >> yes. yes. well, i think what's interesting

here is that from the very beginning, i mean from day one when he got hired by trump, they never saw eye to eye on anything. i mean they just have entirely different world views. so they were mismatched from the very beginning. i mean trump wants to kind of pull america back. you know, he's kind of america first. he's an isolationist, cut the commitments, stop spending money, whereas bolton believes in -- he believes in a forceful american foreign policy in eastern europe, in the middle east. i mean that's what he spent his whole career advocating. so in that way, he's not a trump ally. he's not trump's friend. and so this is what's so beguiling to people in washington right now. nobody can really figure out what he's going to do. and he's -- you know, he's a smart guy. i mean he's a yale lawyer. he's really smart. he was in the middle of it, so he knows everything. >> what stood out to you from your time with him, from reporting on him? >> well, you know, he's

extremely self-confident. he's extremely self-assured. it was that, and i think really the other thing was what i just mentioned, which was, you know, what's he doing here because, you know, this is a guy who wants to -- you know, he wants a prominent american role all around the world, you know, whether it's -- >> so what was he doing in the white house? was it the chance to work, you know, in the inner sanctum and influence u.s. policy, which would be totally understandable? >> i asked him that question. i said basically, what are you doing here? he said, look, whenever you work for the government, you have to realize you're not going to win every battle. and so i'm going to do what i can basically. and i think the place where he and trump differed, i think, most sharply was over north korea. you know, i mean, i think bolton has publicly advocated attacking north korea and taking out their nuclear facilities and, you know, trump's trying to do a deal. and i think bolton made it

clear -- he certainly made it clear since he left that he just thought that was ridiculous. and so, yeah, they were just like that from the very beginning. so the amazing thing was that he was, you know, ever there to begin with. >> we'll be watching what happens. >> thank you. >> it's a fascinating article. thanks so much. still ahead, what we're now learning about president trump's speech on the death of isis leader abu bakr al baghdadi. tom friedman from "the new york times" joins us next. because al. shouldn't get in the way of a good time. because a heart attack... should never stop the heart of a family. because hemophilia... shouldn't keep someone from doing what's in their blood. at bayer, everything we do... from advances in health to innovations in agriculture... is to help every life we touch. at bayer, this is why we science.

they can save you these. in fact, if you had a dollar for every time they said it, you'd have a lot of dollars. which makes it hard to believe, especially coming from a talking lizard. pip, pip, cheerio! look, all i, dennis quaid, know is that esurance is built to save you dollars without skimping on service. and when they save, you save. the only way to know how much is to get a quote. chances are you'll save time, paperwork, and yes, dollars. when insurance is affordable, it's surprisingly painless. when insurance is affordable, the amazing new iphone has arrived. so has t-mobile's newest signal. now reaching farther than ever before.

right now, switch at a t-mobile store and get the new iphone 11 on us! only at t-mobile. they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

tom friedman from "the new york times" joins us in just a minute. first let's check in with chris and see what he's working on for cuomo prime time. >> so we're going to go through the vindman testimony today. there was a lot in the opening statement to go through. now we have some reporting context for it. we know that the testimony obviously matters to this president and his proxies because they're going after this guy like no one else we've seen testify yet. it reveals something about the president and also their inability to deal with the facts. so where are we in the state of play of this process? we'll go through that tonight. >> all right. chris, see you in about ten minutes from now. look forward to that. did president trump know that the isis leader, al baghdadi was whimpering and

crying before his death? i'll talk with thomas friedman about that and whether the terror group will now collapse. we're reporters from the new york times.

this melting pot of impacted species. everywhere is going to get touched by climate change. 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. it's still unclear where president trump might have learned when president trump learned abu bakr al-baghdadi was before he was killed. a white house spokesman said he wasn't going to get into any specifics about any technology that made it possible or if the president might have talked to the commandos who weren't there. what is clear is that the speech the president delivered didn't resemble and they worked on the language up until the last minute. tom friedman, author and winner of the national book award. the fact that no one seems to

know about this information about baghdadi whimpering, it tells you with there president's leadership style and priorities are. >> you would think he would have sat down with intelligence experts and say what kind of message do we want to convey? clearly they wanted to convey was that he was a coward, this is no one that you want to emulate, this is not a heroic movement. that's one argument i could imagine coming out of the intelligence community. the other argument would be very low key, don't be spiking the football on his grave. you don't want to stimulate someone out there. some marginal guy to say you're trying to humiliate my leader, my guy. let me find a suicide vest. so i don't know which approach they took. i hope the approach was on the

basis of consideration and not president and steven miller flying by the seat of their pants. >> the role that the kurds played in all of this, the intelligence they provided which led the u.s. to baghdadi, the fact that it's come on the heels of the u.s. leaving them high and dry in syria, when the president was asked about the contribution they made to the raid, all he said was they gave us some information that turned out to be helpful. certainly it was more than that. >> from "the new york times" and cnn, it was clear the kurds managed to infiltrate and steal some of his underwear and get a blood sample. so they were able to identify that he was the guy there and that we killed him. the kurds come from this area. they know this area. we've been depending on him since the beginning of the fight. they made an incredible sacrifice, they lost 11,000 people, men and women, fighting isis for us at the behest of the united states and allowing us

blessedly so to lose i think only five or six soldiers. >> the president in the announcement on sunday, he did hail the work of u.s. intelligence agencies but as you point out, these are the same agencies he's been disparaging and undercutting from the beginning. >> the same intelligence agencies who did the remarkable work with the help of others tracking down baghdadi to this little tiny spot in syria are the same people who told us that russian agents participated in using cyber weapons to attempt to tip our last election on behalf of president trump and away from hillary clinton. same agencies, same people, same work ethic, same oath to protect and preserve the constitution. and you can't say in place they're traitors and in another place they're heros. they're the same people.

>> alexander vindman, who served two decades in the military, has shrapnel in his body while serving in iraq, he's being accused by president trump as being disloyal to america because of his impeachment hearing inquiry. does it go downhill from here? i'm not sure how much lower it can get. it doesn't seem on a trajectory that makes any sense. >> i worry about the future of my country today more than any other team that be my life. i'm 66. i lived threw the cold war, through vietnam, and instead of calling out an impeachable offense, they're attacking the process and the very system of our government. this is so dangerous. this is so despicable.

these are people who every day run around boasting and bragging and praising all these american soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom and these people, these people wouldn't make the tiniest sacrifice, not the tinniest sacrifice to just fulfill their constitutional oath to see impeachment process to its true and honest end. they are disgusting and hurting our country. >> and that's based on political calculation? >> it's all based on political calculation. they are political cowards. they will praise the soldiers when they serve their interests. they'll praise them for making the ultimate sacrifice. these people won't make the smallest sacrifice because donald trump might tweet them or they might not get invited for the next golf round? they are disgusting, shameful and hurting our country.

>> tom friedman, thank you, tom. don't miss full circle, our digital news show. catch it streaming live at 5 p.m. we cover a lot of stories you are wouldn't see on this program on any given night. a lot to cover. that's online. the news continues right now. i want to hand it oaf to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> friedman's fired up and i know why. he's right about the behavior. let's get after it. i'm chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." congress has finally heard from someone who was on that damning phone call between the u.s. president and ukraine's president. we're getting new word on what he disclosed. but is there any real question remaining about what happened here? we're going to ask an impeachment player and our investigators on another big night. what do you say, let's get after it. all right, lieutenant colonel