the first public impeachment hearings bring a surprise. what mattered and why. let's test the players and hear from the best minds about where this process goes from hear and what will history say about what happened today. what do you say? let's get after it. we have some new facts. top of the list something bill taylor says he didn't even know about had he testified hind closed doors.

turns out one of his aids came forward to tell him about a call the aid overheard between president trump and ambassador gordon sondland. now that's important for one reason because it shows a connection. the timing matters more. it came a day after the infamous july 25th call with president zelensky. they believe taylor's words show the instructions from ukrain came from the president on down. here's why. >> in the presence of my staff, at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. a member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone can asking sondland asking about the investigations. he told president trump the ukrainians were red a to move forward. a member of my staff asked what president trump thought about ukrain.

mr. sondland reespaupded that president trump cared more about the investigations of joe biden. >> as you heard at theened, the investigation being discussed were being pushed by rudy giuliani. taylor says today that giuliani was work created an irregular policy channel. who else? sondland, rick perry, voleker and mulvaney and that ran counterto u.s. policy goals. the aid who heard that call is going to testify behind closed doors on friday. the republican's defense of the president went from the obvious, that there was no real harm done here. we'll get into more of that later thoorks arguably oblivious that ukrain may have attacked our 2016 election, not russia. but they made the point neither taylor nor george kent saw or

heard anything fisthand. and they again demanded to hear directly from the anonymous whistleblower and ignored the absence of key players who are ducking all the hearings at the request of thes. so let's get a take. democratic congressman jim hiems who sits on the house the telepanel. always good to have you on "primetime." what do you think moved the needle most for the case against the president today? >> i think the big thing today was two spectacular witnesses who have devoted their entire career to serving the country under republican and democratic presidents, boegts of whom repeatedly said that even if you just take the transcript, which the president encouraging us all to read, that was not right. that that was illegal. that that was an abuse of power.

i know that republicans mounted two defenses. but you heard that from people. you didn't talk to the president. they're also not saying the facts are contested. nobody is saying the president didn't do this stuff. they're saying you're not in the room and the other interesting argument that you eluded to is event that he will aid was restored or but the president has the absolute power to dismiss an ambassador and i saw people scratching their heads but when you pull those arguments apart it takes ten seconds to explain that's a really shaby defense. >> one step back from the witnesses. are you curious lat how ambassador taylor didn't know about this phone call when he was originally deposed? >> as he told us today he only learned about it i guess last week. so when he was depose fwhied committee he apparently didn't can know about it. >> that's what he said but i

don't know ohow his staff could have been caught that asleep? you know he's talking about this and you hide -- whatever. you neglect >> there's no evidence he was hiding anything. do not mean to suggest that. his staff needs to step up because they needed to step up sooner. but it's out there now. it's hard for the president to say he didn't know sondland. now actual defense. i think you're going to hear more that nothing hand, they got the aid, didn't give us the dirt. so eyear okay. the counteris when you aattempt crime, which you fail, you don't get to walk away but you don't get the death penalty eeth. does it make you concerned about a case for removal if it winds up what hear done was so bad? >> let's take both the abuse of

power with respect to the ukrain and ambassador. you were committing a crime but you didn't complete the crime. as you know the withholding of aid when congressionally mandated -- remember it was withheld from early july until september 11th, several days after the white house learned that congress was going to look into this. let me give you an analogy. if somebody is abusing their spouse for months and then when they hear the police cars coming they stop and say but i've stopped. that is no defense. a crime is not defined by successful completion. and this crime, was without question in an undisputed way ongoing. the republicans are saying the ambassador as the absolult power to dismiss an ambassador. yes, the president has the power to dismiss an ambassador. but as you know and american kz figure out power is power and

then there's abuse of power. a silly example. one piece of power is i get to nominate people to the military academy. and nobody gets to challenge my ability to do that. but if i do that because a parent pays me to nominate their child to the military academy, that is a prosecutable abuse of power. so yes, he has the powerer to fire ambassador yovanovitch but he did for corrupt purposes. >> it's a window into what he wanted and what he would do to keep people out of his way so that he could get it. so it certainly help inform the picture. i do wonder if we could put up the list of all the things mr. nuns brought up, where they were throwing a lot of spaghetti up against the wall i don't know

how they sustain a meaningful defense of this president without the people who are being kept from the committee. they need mulvaney. they need to have pompeo and they need to have have bolton for people to sit down and say they're wrong about what this president wanted and what he was willing to do. don't you think at some point they're go having to to rely on the people they're holding backing? >> i don't think there's a lot of doubt that the president gave the order to suspend military aid. the alternative is mulvaney over a slice of pizza decidedium are going to stop aid to ukrain. it's absurd on the face of it and all kinds of circumstantial evidence the president ordered this. john bolton would be an interesting witness. the person i would like to hear from and had whole half of the story that has not been told to the american people is what the heck rudy giuliani was doing in

ukrain because i can only imagine the conversations he had. and the firing of ambassador yovanovitch has as much to do with rudy giuliani. >> he was the elephant in the room and the gop kept staying away from him. there's this anticipation that rudy giuliani would be made scape egoat, which i think is really dangerous with everything he knows and how strong a force he can be. but he was the elephant in the room. well identified and thank you for your take on the first day of a historic process. the case against the president, all right. it's going to come down that evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. so even though this is a political process, we need our investigative big brains to tell us what they see, what the vulnerabilities are. what the strengths are to let us see where this goes. next. with fidelity wealth management you get straightforward advice,

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

o♪ ozempic®! ♪row and proteoh!your wealth. oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine

for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

if you're paying attention, you got all the players, all e pundits on tv. it's going to be largely based on what you say you believe and whom you say you believe. that's why the democrats started with the two they did, bill taylor and george kent. taylor, you've got a career in service. this guy was done, retired. secretary of state pompeo recruited him, asked him to come and he's no creation of a deep state machine. they asked him to do this. and he did this even knowing rudy giuliani and company had just run out the last ambassador to ukrain. and then kent, a guy who raised concern about hunter biden when it was happening. so let's talk about what this means, the cred blability theaby

of the two people. investigative genius minds, andrew mccabe and furarrau. don't smile at your own success. when you lack at who was up there today, that's my suggestion. you guys nev did an investigation or a case where you put out your two biggest people off the bat if you're building a case. but in terms of credibility? >> they're about as credible as you can get in terms off demeanorer, being calm and measured when attacked in various ways by members of the republican side. so i can't recall a time i've seen in congressional testimony and i helped to over see hearings in congress four and a half years and a u.s. attorney for seven and a half years. they didn't over state at multiple junctures. they were asked do you see

something impeach and some thought they thought it was a favor in the president's favor. it was a favor in the part of the two witnesses. bill taylor said ovand over i'm simply there tell you what i saw and heard and judgments for you to make. >> wouldn't you say or have thought? they backed off both times. in fact i thought it looked cheap when jordan said i can't believe they thought you were the best they have out of the box. neither of you know anything first-hand. how bag deal? >> that's a substantive point and a valid one for the republicans to make. they have very little ground to stand on to attack these gentleman. also because, particularly in the case of taylor, he is backed up by a contemporaneous record. hand written notes and the text messages he sent at the time.

so when he tells you i was shocked by what i heard, you know that's true because at the time he sent a contemporaneous text. >> and a staff that probably forget a to tell him i heard the president on a phone call with sondland recogniight after the call. >> i don't think any of us has not been surprised by something we learn from the staff after the fact. so i'll give the staff a pass on that one. >> but they didn't fight, they didn't embellish. they didn't give their opinions. they just uctatalked about what happened and that, in the long run, builds credibility. >> we know they have a big sheet next week in terms off who they're bringing on. but the defense was, was, this is all about one phone call. i don't think they can make that

argument very well anymore. there's too much that happened before and after. so the new defense is nothing happened. there was a confusion over intent. what you saw as corruption was his desire to direct foreign policy against corruption. let's put that aside. they got the aid, they didn't give us any dirt. no harm, no efoul. >> in criminal cases that doesn't work. >> but we're not there. >> by the way it's worse because you don't have to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. if you think there's an abuse of power, that's kind of all that matters. in the ordinary case, it doesn't matter the crime was completed. there's a crime of intent and conspiracy. if we sat here and agreed to rob a bank and took a step or two in connection with the robbing of the bank, even at the end of the day the bank wasn't robbed because the plot was foiled,

which law enforcement loves to do. the greatest thing you could accomplish was to make sure the crime was not completed. that'ser a wonderful thing to accomplish. >> you stopped the bad guys. >> but they still went to prison. >> but they don't get the death penalty. >> i don't think anyone is planning to hang the president of the united states. >> but removing him from office is a political death penalty. i think it was announced, you're going to hear that. >> sure but the core message that democrats have to convince the public and the senate is this president abused his foreign policy power for his own benefit. and the way they're going to do that on the republican side is to throw out anything they possibly can to distract from that message. so that's why you heard about this is all second hand.

thalts a that's why you heard about the mueller report. it's all nonsense but that's their job right now to muddy the waters and distract people away from the core message which is this president abused his authority. >> friday you have yovanovitch and the staffer who told the stuf taylor late in the game you think sondland is the most important early witness? >> one point, you're actually presenting the best defense of the president i've heard so far, which is a concession, it seems. maybe he abused his power but really are you going to kick him out of office? i don't think it wins the day at the end of the testimony. it's a reasonable argument. >> it's better than what they're doing now. >> you play upon people's reasonableness and that's the argument they're making. in part because the president won't allow them to make it. he keeps saying don't talk about

process and the nape nature of the punishment. it was a perfectly beautiful call. i think the president's allies are very excited about sondland testifying because the president has relied on a number of things that commonsense tells you shouldn't be as much as they are. he keeps relying on the fact that the president zelensky said there's no pressure. we know victims of extortion in the presence of the extortionist on whom they still rely in front of the cameras sometimes deny the same might be true with sondland. he gets asked a question. i think it's crazy if we're conditioning this on that. five hours go by and sondland writes back i think you mischaracterized the position of the president's efforts.

>> he's being coached. you know what would make my argument more saleable is if the president said look, what i did was wrong. without that any defense is pretty weak. why are they not concerning to republicans? why do they dismiss an argument even preet said was reasonable. . there's just something different to a disney movie. (vo) verizon knows you love all things disney. i think we've watched every single movie at least twice. four times. 100 times. (vo) that's why your unlimited plan now comes with disney+ on us for a year. because the network more people rely on gives you more. 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.

fun fact: 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. and most of that debt is actually from credit cards. it's just not right. but with sofi, you can get your credit cards right, by consolidating your credit card debt into one monthly payment. you can get your interest rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. and you can get your money right with sofi. check your rate in two minutes or less. get a no-fee personal loan up to $100k.

i know there are a lot of speeches about how the process is not good. we're on the road to impeachment or not but we're not going to get off the road and for all the talk about witness withes and t rights, there was a big question that came up and i think it'ser the key to what happens going forward. let's bring in our republican from oklahoma. >> good to be back on with you. glrs i was listening very closely to mr. jordan. when talk to him, tell him please come home, come home, brother jordan. and he's saying these guys don't have direct knowledge. you're good guys but you don't have direct knowledge. you can know what we need? you've got to get mulvaney, pompeo and bolton. the guys who dealt with the president directly who know the whole situation, who were at the top of the food chain, have them come in, tell the democrats what

happened and how they have it wrong, let america hear it. isn't that your best bet? >> when they allow the president to have counsel and call witnesses, that would be great. >> they gave you witnesses. under clinton they only got one. they only got one under clinton, ken starr. >> the whistleblower started this and the only person who knows what the whistle blow is, is adam schiff. >> i get the politics. >> nox it's not politics. they say adam schiff gave us people to come in and testify, they really didn't. these individuals already came in these aren't new witnesses. these are democrat witnesses. >> you got to pick your poison. congressman -- >> if you want mulvaney and pompeii oo and you want

giuliani, then allow the president to have counsel and nixon. >> not at this stage. they got ken starr, the clinton people. you said they won't let us have any witnesses. you have -- let me make a point. voleger, omorrison and fiona hill. heal. >> that was witnesses the democrats had previously -- >> but they're on the list. >> what we said is we wanted their testimonies released but what's on our list is the whistleblower. >> the whistleblower has legal protection. >> the whistleblower didn't have legal protection. there's only whistle protection if they handled it in the proper channels. the proper channels was not going to meet with the intel community first and setting

down -- >> nowhere is it written that whistleblower can't do that. when you guys say they changed the rules, that's not true and the i. good. did what he's supposed to do. you guys complained -- >> fire sng. >> yeah, that's one of the reports that he doesn'tb like how he handled the whistleblower. the reporting has turped out to be retie dang good. look where we are right now. >> no quid pro quo. there's been no crime committed and they're still trying to impeach the president because of why? >> you can't say either of those two things because you don't know -- >> have you heard any of it? >> yegs. the democrats are wrong to use the word extorgsz. this was an attempted bribe and not just because it's in the constitution. the president says to ukrain i know what you want, you want

access to the presidency. >> you cannot make the assumption. >> so you can assume there was no quid pro quo and no crime -- >> there was the president of ukrain and president trump. >> and dozens of conversations before and after. >> you cannot make assumptions -- >> i don't have to. i've read the transcripts. >> was there any of that in there? >> yes. >> did the president of the united states ever say that? >> gordon sondland is going to say if he sticks by what he said -- >> you're making an assumption againx chris. >> what he said already. if he says what he said already which is and now you coordinate it with what taylor staffer said and you get something you can't disown, he wanted the bidens and didn't want them to get the aid in ukrain. that's what he wanted.

he thinks biden is dirty. i'm not saying it. he believes that. >> february 2016, mr. kent, what did he bring up to vice president's own office? was he not concerned with the situation with hunter biden going on in the corruption? >> yeah, he was. because he thought had an appearance of conflict of interest. it was vice president himself who went out and bragged he stopped the investigation. >> so clearly not a never trumper, right? >> trump asked that a country riddled with corruption and we know this -- >> a country is riddled with krupgds krupgds -- in a country riddled with corruption you ask about joe biden, a person who under

law you're supposed to go to the doj to investigate, as president or anybody else. but you go to ukrain and you know what you ask for? an announcement of an investigation. >> was there any quid pro quo? >> the conversation is a window into a world that existed before and after it, okay. >> it's full of assumptions that you and the rest of the democrat party is trying to impeach the president. >> i never said it's impeachable. you have to listen to what i'm saying because there's wisdom for you in it. you can admit all this happened. this is what i would say. he shouldn't have done it this way. rudy shouldn't have been involved. you're right. he thinks biden is dirty. he should have gone to the d oo jx but he didn't do it for bad reasons. he did for good reasons. so i don't see how you remove him from office.

there was an attempted bribe. it was an attempted bribe. why didn't they get the aid? >> if it was attempted then the day the conversation was asked is the -- has the president done anything impeachable and taylor and kent both was silence as crickets because there's been nothing the president has done? >> they're not there to give that opinion. they had actual dignity and integrity. their job is not to decide whether or not to impeach. they're like you guys -- they told you what they knew. >> no. >> whether or not somebody should be impeached z is way beyond what they're testifying to. >> if you're testifying in a criminal case. >> this is not a criminal case. >> we're talking treason, bribery, high crime or misdemeanor. >> not a criminal case and if

you read federalist papers 65, then you know alexander hamilton put the words political in all caps. do you know why? because it's not criminal action. that's why. >> he also said he was afraid one day -- i'm paraphrasing, but basically said he was afraid one day this would be used for political reasons. >> i'll make your .1 more time. he didn't say one day. he said aev time that it will be partisan every time and that with -- >> it wasn't with johnson, it wasn't with clinton. dp >> it was so political with johnson they made up a law to catch him. it was so political with clinton that you start would a land deal and ended with a a sex act because you had democrats that had the inrety to go against one of their own and now we have a buchb of republicans to say nothing bad happened. i hear you.

let's see if you feel like that a week from today. >> did you see anything that cause you to ovturn the american people's vote? >> i'm not into business of impeachment. >> you're making assumptions of everything -- >> no asumptions. only based on the recrtd. >> there's nothing in the record you can make the assumption there's quid pro quo committed. >> yes, there is. it was an attempted bribe. you haven't answered why the aid was held up, you haven't answered why they kept asking about biden and -- >> the ukrainians didn't even know their aid was held up. >> they knew, they didn't know then. they knew and were concerned enough to reach out to our own representativeb representative to ask about it. >> they put out that they didn't know. >> why did they go to the

liaison and say how do we deal with this? >> ambassador taylor said they wurnlt weren't aware of it and he didn't know -- >> taylor was on the outside. once you get closer to the inside it's all they were talking about. >> you're making the assumption on the inside. not one single person has said their aid was held up >> that's not true. sondland is going to say it. they've all said it in the transcripts. you're betting american people aren't doing their homework. >> there was zero first hand knowledge. >> by the way there was a lot of good men and women in jail because of what they heard. so the idea hearsay is nothing is silly. iate up time but it was worth it because this is the conversation american people were having. keep your eye on the facts.

take a look at the transcripts. pay attention to the testimony because you're going to be told things that are in political interest not in the interest of simple truth. we're going to bring the experts back in as i go over the rest of the show and year going to take look at why what happened mattered and this discussion with the process through their legal and investigative and journalistic eyes, next. it's a beautiful piece of land, so why haven't you started building? tyler's off to college. and mom's getting older. mhm, and eventually we would like to retire. td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade.

come with a goal. leave with a plan. dana-farber cancer institute

discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

all right. let's bring in robert ray and lewis, journalism, law and politics wrapped up into one. mark wayne mullen is the hot talk back and forth about what the state of play is. but in terms of the merits of where the democrats want to get and resistance in republicans. >> i thought the democrats did a good job hammerering home through the witnesses that one of the main defenses, as it were doesn't hold water and that's that trump was somehow defending the national interests. because you have two civil servants saying this is not only in the u.s. national interest but it undermines our ability to establish rule of law in other countries. and the fact that republicans

kept talking about how corrupt ukrain. if ukrain is so corrupt, why would the president of the united states want to hand over the investigation of two u.s. citizens for corruption? i think that came through and obliterated that defense. >> even if one defense is weak, doesn't mean you're lined for impeachment. >> the narrative keeps shifting as far as the legal theory that the democrats are relying on. you apparently dismenpensed wit extortion because there's no pressure. >> extortion is do this or i break your legs and that's not what this is. >> they don't like talking about quid pro quo because the country has had a two-month education about latin and now we're going backing to what adam schiff says -- >> attempted bribe.

>> no, the founders intended bribery to be more expansive than federal law -- >> why wouldn't it be attempted bribe? >> because fist all of you're relying on what amounts to an attempt to prove an exclusive quid pro quo with an act, which is foreign assistance? is it military aid or merely the announcement of an investigation? three of it four of those don't qualify under the supreme court's definition of an official act and i suspect the reez adam schiff is trying to get away with extortion and bribery is he knows that's weak. lel let's suggest the founders didn't know what bribery was. you're left with nebulous stuff

in the air. you're going to try to impeach with an implicit quid pro quo and the theory that acting for equivalent of a personal benefit that can constitute the quid pro quo necessary to be attempted or actual bribery. i think that's a long way away. >> if the this comes out errol is running against me, i got big step up. i loved your coverage on new york one. had i calling the right thing? where you had people on giving these kinds of assessments and you kept going back to will they grab on to this? tell me about this. >> look, much of the political framing, which does spill over is about whether or not this is going to educate the public.

from the clinton impeachment and the whatergate hearings i'm hol enough remember it played out like a soap opera. some were more memorable, others less but it took time. er it was dense information and the impact on the audience, in this case the public, the voters. this is their chance. the public is very much part of this. this isn't about a bucnch of bickering politicians or the president, this is the whole country trying to figure out what happened. if you're looking for a statutory crime, it is absolutely against a law to slis at thing of value to help your campaign. is the investigation worth something? i think it looked worth something. there are a number of different problems here we're trying to sort through and because it's in this odd space between what's

political, halwhat's legal what moral -- >> i think that's a hard sell because the justice department is apined with regard to that. so you can say you disagree with the trump justice department led by bill barr, that you don't think that's a proper interpretation of law. that's rather thin read to hang on to for impeachment. >> you know when the constitution was created there was -- the federal criminal code was pretty much nonexistent. so getting into that as the basis whereas abuse of power, which means using the authority of your office and implicit quid pro quos we recognize all the time. we recognize when there was a power differential, which is what is happening, they don't need to sigh what they're

willing to give when a request. >> not in the case of a campaign finance allegation. >> they expected it to be as ugly as this is definitely going to get. thank you very much. thank you for helping the audience think about it a little bit better. talking points. we try to break through it on the show but i think you have to look at what moves the needle and doesn't. that's what this process is going to be about. both sides are trying to play toed a vanltage. it's politics. i'm sorry but that's what it is. i'll pointb it out next. happened last year. you can't bring a backup thanksgiving to my sister's house. it's not like we're going to walk in with it. we'll bring it in as we need it. ...phase it in. phase it in? yeah, phase it in.

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. a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque

and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. all right. first battle was over the worth of the witnessesx taylor and kent. to be honest they were credible, consistent, nonpartisan in their appraisal. strong enough that -- >> you didn't listen to president trump's call? >> i did not.

>> you never talked to chief of staff mulvaney? >> that's correct. >> and you'rer their star witness, their first witness. >> rude and absurd every time. no one puts their most important witnesses firs. everybody builds from the inside out and you'll see that here. you'll see them get closer and closer to the innercircle. he pointed out they were short on direct who and why. but they with urnere not promis anything else. they thought withholding military aid was dangerous. they never got tripped up in five plus hours of testimony and you know who did speak directly with the president? gordon sondland. one of the staffers over heard a call with president trump and sondland and potus was overheard

wanting an investigation on biden. by the way the staffer for taylor is there friday. the big take away. you know the main defense for trump. nothing happened. ukrain got the aid, they never delivered on dirt. and this is about getting to the middle of the meddling. they pretended this is about whether ukrain and not russia was to blame. meaning they're once again trashing the findings of our intel agencies. can democrats get the president saying to someone that he basically wanted to bribe ukrain? today's bomb shell gets him closer. we'll see what sondland says. in court it's usually those directed by them who reveal the top's role. but to remove a president close shouldn't cut it. two, will we hear from anyone in

trump's inner circle who could definitively tell us? but mulvaneyx pompeo and bolton. he and his defenders want the truth, direct access. those are the guys. schiff isn't the problem. trump is. next thing is whether the two sides can act like the two witness withes. taylor and kent handled hard questions thoughtfully, stayed away from speculation, and were clearly driven by sense of duty. taylor and kent should make us proud of the people who serve us in government. let's see if congress can do the same. that's the point for today. be on the lookout. a big development coming. when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea. try new pepto liquicaps for fast relief and ultra-coating. nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea.

get powerful relief with new pepto bismol liquicaps. nyquil severe gives you powerful relief for your worst cold and flu symptoms, on sunday night and every night. nyquil severe. the nightime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. 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! introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear, with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. there's just something different to a disney movie. (vo) verizon knows you love all things disney. i think we've watched every single movie at least twice. four times. 100 times. (vo) that's why your unlimited plan now comes with disney+ on us for a year. because the network more people rely on gives you more. geico would like to take a moment to say thank you to our military service members at home and abroad for all their hard work and sacrifice. we all sleep easier knowing you're out there

keeping us safe. and on a personal note... sfx: jet engines ... i just needed to get that off my chest. thank you. geico: proudly supporting the military for over 75 years. it takes a village to raise to build a bridge. to throw a baseball... to throw yourself into the unknown. to lose fear, to create hope. we believe that it takes a village of over 200-thousand dedicated, passionate, driven medical and non-medical professionals to deliver on our belief in total health for all.

we are kaiser permanente. thrive.

be on the lookout. something we learned will matter a lot next week. this taylor staffer who heard a phone call that ambassador sondland was on with the president when the president was asking about the investigations. that came out today in the hearing. that staffer is testifying friday. trrs that makes the testimony of sondland so big. is he going to protect himself or the president? does he say the president told him what to do? bol objection. thanks so much. david holmes is that staffer's name. >> it will be in private but things will leak out and sondland will be in the same box he was last time. because he went in and gave a nice reckoning for the president and he had to revise