good evening. cnn senior political analyst who served four presidents from both parties. said something unexpected and striking earlier tonight. today was the single worst day for the trump presidency. coming from somebody in the experience. from the nixon administration. his assessment gets your attention. however you look at it today was significant a big day at the end of a historic week marking the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. we aim to capture tonight in this special hour. we hope to put the day and the week into perspective and look at what's to come. to do that, we cathedrneed to d what we learned tonight. closed door testimony from david holmes. serving at the embassy in kiev. it puts trump at the center of the alleged scheme to pressure

ukraine into investigating the bidens as well as conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. according to to his opening statement, this is all the president was interested in. according to sondland the ambassador. not corruption in general or russia's into the country. sondland said he wanted help winning a second term through the investigation of his leading political rival. in holmes opening statement he describes a phone call the sondland made in front of him to the president on the 26th of july. this is the day after the president's call asking ukraine president for a favor to investigate a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. one which led to russia off the hook. and to investigate the bidens. ambassador sondland places the call in front of holmes and others on an unsecure personal cell phone at an out door restaurant at a table in kiev,

ukraine. talk about loud enough to be over heard at times. sondland actually held the phone away from his ear the president was talking so loud. according to the testimony quote i heard sondland greet the president. and explain he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump clarify that the ambassador was in ukraine. ambassador sondland replied yes. and wept onto state president zelensky quote loves your -- and quote. he's going to do the investigation? the day after he had asked directly the president to do the investigations. ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do that. adding president zelensky will do anything you ask him to. the call ended holmes continues. i asked sondland if it was true the president didn't give a -- about ukraine. i asked why not. ambassador sondland stated that

the president cares about big stuff. i noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine. like a war with russia and sondland replied he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation. that giuliani was pushing. holmes testimony came immediately after former ukraine ambassador yovanovitch went before the intelligence committee. she testified about the smear campaign against her. including on july 25th call with ukraine president. >> president trump says that the former ambassador from the united states the woman was bad news. and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. so i just want to let you know. what was your reaction when you heard the president of the united states refer to you as bad news? >> i couldn't believe it. shock.

appalled. devastated. that the president of the united states would take any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state. and it was me. i couldn't believe it. >> what did you think when president trump told president zelensky and you read that you were going to go some things? >> i didn't know what to think. i was very concerned. >> what were you concerned about? >> she's going to go through some things it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> yovanovitch told the committee about the lack of support she saw from secretary of state pompeo. >> in the face of the smear campaign did colleagues try to get statement of support for you from pompeo? >> yes. >> were they successful?

>> no. >> did you come to learn they couldn't issue such a statement because they feared it would be under dut by the president? >> yes. >> under cut with a tweet such as the one the president sent while she was testifying. i'm quoting from the president. everywhere yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in so moll ya. how did that go? fast forward to ukraine the president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. >> he is right about the very last part. democrats seized on the tweet as evidence of witness intimidation and the ambassador said yes it does intimidate her. and she was testifying a washington federal jury was convicting trumps political guru roger stone of lying to the very same congressional panel that and witness tampering similar to what's being alleged against the president. the zibs trump associate to plead to or convicted of federal

crime. his former business partner manafort is behind bars and everything you heard was only today. don't forget there was testimony this week from state department veterans taylor and kent. testimony that painted a dark picture of what they call the irregular chan channels of diplomacy. bolton likened it to a drug deal. and court rulings against the president on his taxes. this could be the worst day for him in his presidency. the case could be made for the week. a lot to talk. holmes testimony went late into the night. talk about what holmes is laying out or did lay out in his opening statement. >> holmes just departed a short while ago. six hours behind closed doors. mostly mum about the setting, the ten page opening statement

that cnn obtained is detailed in several places and damming and wide ranging. you talk about the meeting that taylor first testified about earlier this week. we have plenty of details on that. the holmes statement goes significantly further than that. it talks about the decision to with hold security aide. saying at one point bolton made clear in a private meeting that president trump was likely unwilling to lift the hold unless he was quote favorably impressed by meeting with president zelensky. that was in the offering in a short order. he went in depth about recollection in comments from others about rudy giuliani. someone we heard about from yovanovitch. saying someone wondered allowed about why he was so active in the media with respect to the ukraine. sondland stated every time he gets involved he goes and fs everything up. it's not just the the meeting. but it was the testimony of

somebody on the ground, actually seeing what was transpiring the fact the system backs up what we have heard from other witnesses throughout the course of the week. it's going to make this individual a key player for democrats going forward and somebody they are considering bringing in from the public at some point soon. >> president trump was asked earlier this week about the conversation. what did he say? >> he said he had no recollection of it. just listen to his own word. >> i know nothing about that. first time i have heard it. the one thing sondland said was that he did speak to me for a brief moment. i said no quid pro quo. under any circumstances. that's true. the other i have never heard this. in any event it's more secondhand information. i have never heard it. >> do you recall a conversation. >> not at all. not a little bit. the only thing -- i guess

sondland stayed with his testimony there was no quid pro quo. pure and simple. >> there's two issues. one it was secondhand. holmes making it clear that not only did he over hear the president quoting specific things. but also two other staffers were sitting at the table with them. there were other witnesses. the other is this, ambassador sondland we have heard his name a lot. he had to amend testimony. he will be testifying on wednesday by himself in front of the panel. in public. these things will be brought up without question. there's one more point that hasn't gotten as much attention. holmes makes clear the reason why he came forward and contacted ambassador taylor. because he was reading reports of the impeachment inquiry talking about how everything was hearsay. he says in his statement once he saw that he realized he had firsthand information and he decided to come forward.

in other words what he saying is the republican attacks on the testimony up to this point are essentially what drove him to come forward. now what he said what he's bringing to the table becomes central to the impeachment inquiry. >> legal and political late nighttime. impeachment law specialist. it's interesting. holmes traveled from ukraine to testify. under subpoena. he didn't quibble about it. not waiting for a court ruling like bolton and others. how important is his testimony? >> very important. you heard phil lay out what he said in his opening statement. that cnn obtained. that it was because of all of the back and sfort particularly republicans saying about this can't be true because we have second and third hand. he wanted to do it. he got subpoenaed. but sound like that was a

formality. so he can testify. because he's still very much a government employee. working in the executive branch. and this is we already were waiting for sondland's testimony. next wednesday. it makes the stakes for that so much higher. from what we learned and for him. and for him to make sure this time he gets it right and tells the truth. whatever truth is. since he already amended testimony. >> you worked at state department. is it common first of all i don't understand why the ambassador was even in a restaurant in kiev involved in this. that has nothing to do with -- >> part of the eu. >> nothing going on to be dealing with. that aside is it common for the eu ambassador to have phone calls with direct line to the president? in especially in open setting in a restaurant. >> no. absolutely not. there are times when ambassadors

or certainly people traveling the secretary of state or have calls to the president about ongoing issues. usually done in a skiff. in a hotel or embassy. one this is uncommon. how the call actually took place. over a cell phone that we all can agree wasn't secure. it's fair to say sondland not a typical also. yovanovitch is a typical ambassador. tarp taylor is a typical ambassador. he's not. it's important to remember how he got here. >> even political. >> on islands. >> in parts of the world where there are key negotiations and relationships and countries pushing back op russia, that is not where you would have a political ambassador with no experience. that is not common. >> scott. the significance today? so many things happened. on holmes, what do you make.

>> sondland is in a pickle now. he has the testimony laying out there with specific recollection of what was said. if he goes to the committee this week and says that's everything said. he maybe contradicts what he said. and simultaneously angering the president. if he says that's not what was said and they produce other witnesses. he's in -- >> he's already testified under oath. and amended that. once his memory returned after other people contradicted him. even in his amendment he didn't talk about this phone call. >> that's why his testimony next week -- i said this. i thought yovanovitch we can talk about her to. she was compelling. just how much pressure has been put object on the only guy they have testifying that talked to the president. that's sondland. i wonder the lawyers can tell us, there's probably a legit question for him about whether he should appear. and i'm not a lawyer. you are.

given the stakes for him, he works for the president of the united states and all of the contradictory things swirling. what would you tell this guy? >> i would be having a serious talk with sondland. if he were my client about whether it makes sense to show up on wednesday and testify in public. >> unless you get what immunity or something? >> there could be those discussions. there might be an argument if i were his lawyer. which i am not. that he's already come and cooperated and told all he knows. he did it in private. and provided a affidavit. and there's no need for him to come and participate in the public spectacle. that would be a serious discussion that i would be having. and as a fall back position there's the fifth amendment. you never want to have a client take that. >> if that's the case immediately congress ought to convene. they don't need to. schiff can issue a subpoena. get him there.

and if he wants to challenge it he can go to court. he doesn't have a basis for saying no. it's not executive privilege. or attorney client privilege or anything. >> first of all they have been claiming executive privilege for all sorts of loonny bin. >> the claim would be legislative purpose. >> which means what? >> it's a claim. >> argument we have seen from the administration. that there's no legitimate legislate i purpose for this public hearing. that he's given all of the testimony in private. that there are court decisions saying that it is not a legit legislative purpose to expose for the sake of exposing. there's a transcript of testimony. that's potentially there. >> impeachment is in the constitution. that by its own nature makes it

legitimate. >> a judge -- >> giving free legal advice. >> defense attorney thing. he has to do the right thing. >> if nothing more for his own reputation. >> he probably has exposure in terms of false statements if he doesn't tell the truth. there are other witnesses that are testifying under oath. and i think holmes testimony is quite compelling. >> also the stone verdict today is a reminder of the importance of -- >> it is. >> truth in it testimony. >> congress in a variety of the hearings throughout the last couple years hasn't been unwilling to send criminal referrals for lying under oath. so the members are willing to send those referrals. he's the ambassador to the united states. he represents the united states.

he has an obligation in my judgment. this is not a legal defense. this is the right thing to do. to come and tell the truth and say what happened. holmes testimony i thought there were two really important things. one was that trump asked sondland told him that he's zelensky going to do the investigation. and holmes over heard that. and heard it directly. >> sondland says this guy the president will do anything you want. >> he's on the call. he needs to come and be truthful. >> we have to pick up the conversation after a break. and what one republican lawmaker did to dodge questions about the president's tweet. also tonight joined by a lawmaker doing the questioning. our special late coverage continues. 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.

[upbeat music] no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics (bubbles popping) and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness. ♪la la la la la.

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. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health

using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. there was a song today that republican law makers were not

keen to defend president trump tweeting at the star witness. some dodged questions about it. texas congressman went a stp further. he whipped out a cell phone and began talking into it. even though his home screen was visible and there was no call in progress. >> i have done it on the street. >> oldest trick in the book. >> truth comes out. on the other hand, our panels loves to talk. so from our attorney section you don't think he should. but -- he will. >> it depends -- >> sondland showing up. >> what he has to say and how good his memory is. right now we don't know what he'll say. we don't know if he remembers this call or dispute this testimony that came dm today.

we don't know if the two other participants in the meeting will dispute the testimony. if i were him i would be very careful. >> or hoping to keep his job. >> the disagreement is i don't see a way he gets out of it. given the committees ability to subpoena him. and what i think are thin arguments about congress doesn't have a legislative purpose for going down this road. seeing as how it's in the middle of a impeachment proceeding that a federal court already said -- >> his testimony is central to the issue of the impeachment. it's right smack down the middle of the crux of the issue. which is the president requesting political -- >> you pick this guy to give him this post. because he gave you a million dollars for the inauguration. and he is the most important person suddenly in your life.

>> he agreed to do it. obviously that's why -- >> it's not a coincidence. >> he was -- the kid in school who always has his hand raised. the oeager beaver. from a democrat kp republican he has been wanting this. to be close to the power to be part of the power. structure a wheel and deal for so long. now he has a president of the united states calling him on the regular. saying do my deal for me. execute the things i want. >> he's in the middle of things. >> let's talk about yovanovitch. the testimony today. how credible was she and do you think it was witness intimidation the president tweeting? >> i worked with her at the state department. watching her today i felt so proud to know her. i think that was the feeling that so many people wo worked

were her and embassies around the world throughout the building you heard the applause. it was compelling and powerful. probably the last place she wanted to be. you could see it on her face. this is really difficult and tough. i thought that was one of the parts that made it compelling. i don't know i'll leave it to the lawyers on whether it was witness intimidation. this isn't a legal process. this is political. if you're watching at home, of which millions were and see this woman honest and candid in a public servant for 30 years and talking about how the president of the united states intimidated her and scared her. that seems that's not compelling. i think that probably left a mark with people. at least on the political front it was a very bad move by the president. bad day. >> i'm a fan of the foreign service people. these are the instruments of our soft power.

they go off in service and do a great service to the american people. and i thought her testimony was compelling. however it wasn't all totally germane to what we're talking about. she said she wasn't involved in the july 25th call. she had no knowledge of the warsaw meeting. she hasn't spoke to the president or mulvaney. it was inadvisable to attack her and elevate the way the president did. which caused this to spiral all day long. she was a sympathetic compelling figure who loves her country. didn't deserve to be attacked and didn't need to be. the republican in the afternoon walking on egg shells trying not to -- >> yeah. so i suspect what they were supposed to do today was sort of make the points that she is praised trumps ukrainian policy and said the previous administration or whatever. and leave it at that. when he tripped in to that it bloo blew up the strategy.

>> nunes was trying to make it sound like she was not relevant to be there. that was part of the strategy. when the president of the united states tweets attacking her. instant relevancy. >> a member of the over sight committee joining us next. to talk about the testimony. m h, i love doing it. hey jay. jay? charlotte! oh hi. he helped me set up my watch lists. oh, he's terrific. excellent tennis player. bye-bye. i recognize that voice. annie? yeah! she helped me find the right bonds for my income strategy. you're very popular around here. there's a birthday going on. karl! he took care of my 401k rollover. wow, you call a lot. yeah, well it's my money we're talking about here. joining us for karaoke later? ah, i'd love to, but people get really emotional when i sing. help from a team that will exceed your expectations. ♪

well you remember what 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.

the top story tonight on day that featured public testimony from the ousted u.s. ambassador about the smear cam tan to neutralize her. testimony behind closed doors tied trump even more directly to the allegations he leveraged

foreign policy for political gain. joining me now congressman on the oversight committee. how important did you think holmes testimony is because one of the arguments republicans are making this is hearsay, second and third hand information. this is somebody sitting at the table and says there were two others who heard. who actually heard the president's voice and can say some of the things the president said and sondland said and characterized. >> it's a bomb shell. and it isn't hearsay it's corroborated by ambassador taylor. who said that he was told this and he's testifying that the president is admitting he's asking one day after the phone call with zelensky whether the investigation is going to happen. and that zelensky is going to do this investigation to curry favor with the president. i don't know what more we need. this is clear cut case. >> the timing is particularly important. republicans can easily make the

argument the president can argue i meant anticorruption investigation in general. the given the fact it came after the day after the phone call in which the only investigations he is asking for is a favor is biden and the conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. >> there's no credibility to this idea that they're asking for anticorruption. why are they talking about biden then? the person beating you in the polls is the subject of the investigation. and this person holmes who is a career foreign officer. no political agenda is out raged enough that the president is seeking this on a political rival. >> we have been discussing whether or not ambassador sondland should testify or will. if he does is he a credible witness at all at this point? he's gifen sworn testimony and others testified and his compared his story and realized he's contradicted and reverses

it will. memory is restored. but doesn't mention this other phone call. >> here's what i would say to ambassador sondland. the president of the united states don't end up in jail. people around them do. if i were someone working for the president and concerned about perjury i would testify. he has credibility issues. but i think the best thing he can do for his career is come clean and tell the truth. >> roger stone is certainly warning to sondland. >> abs salutely. he revised testimony already. he's with held the truth. what's boggling to me. speaker nancy pelosi said i don't understand why anybody would work for president trump he will throw you under the bus and has been doing this over and over again. i don't understand what sondland has ta gain holding the president's back. >> he's in the hov lane. ready to be run over. he's the next on the list. if you are the president and need to start shedding people.

>> absolutely. there's a phone call where he's asking sondland to investigate biden. i guess the next thing if i was trump is i didn't know what he was doing. he was doing this on his own. heers the problem. we can't get to the president directly. the two people with direct knowledge mulvaney and bolton. we asked to testify. if trump has nothing to hide why doesn't he have them testify. and executive privilege is not a defense. everyone first year law students know you can't have executive privilege if there's illegal conduct. >> yovanovitch her testimony today one of the arguments republicans was making she's irrelevant to -- she never talked to president and wasn't in on discussions and not germane to the issue. the fact that the president chose to tweet against her with ludicrous claims like where ever

she goes things fall apart. somalia and look what happened. which is ridiculous. did he elevate her? did he gif he even more importance? >> he elevated her credibility. it's sad for democracy. yovanovitch is a career foreign officer who served our country and ambassador to ukraine. we already have the hollowing out of the state department career officers don't want to serve. and at some point whether you are republican or democrat you have to wonder what message are we sending to people who want to serve in government? why do people the to serve when it's as political. ambassadors are just bought. you have to contribute a lot to the president to get appointed. and you have people still like ambassador yovanovitch who is willing to go through the real route of being an expert to do this. and now you have the president of the united states attacking her.

>> i appreciate your time. we'll have more ahead. we mention we're trying in this hour to capture the effect of this historic week. to the swing state of wisconsin to watch the hearings with undecided voters. after wednesday's hearings the voters were not really moved. it's the same group. that changed today. you'll hear what they said. that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. 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. get a no-fee personal loan my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems.

i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity. ♪ ♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

after two day of public testimony and a slew of headlines almost entirely negative trt president. we want to know whether the hearings. wisconsin the president won by

1% of the vote and talked to five undecided about what they have been seen in the hearings and whether it had an impact. >> what you do in coming forward and answering a lawful subpoena. was to give courage to others that also witness wrng doing. >> for over six hours we have watched ambassador yovanovitch. president trump called her he said the woman was bad news. to you think the woman was bad news after watching her? >> i did not get that impression. at all. >> what was your impression? >> i think she has served honorably and she is intelligent and dedicated servant of the united states. >> she seemed like an okay person. like actually a lot of the two gentlemen who testified on wednesday. very stable, very sturdy. cautious in her words. unlikely to take unnecessary

risk. >> she's an impressive woman. obviously intelligent. served well for a long time. i would not think of her as bad news. >> none of the five felt like she was bad news. and they adpree on another major issue of the day. >> the ambassador felt like she was a victim of a smear campaign. and while she's talking about it at the same time trump tweets and attacks her. is that a smart thing to do? >> to have this during the testimony as she's speaking about feeling intimidated. that was the wrong move. >> the decision to tweet and describe her as bad news was counter productive to the republicans goals today. >> i don't think he should have been tweeting disparageingly of her during the hearing. that's silly. >> he did it to himself. he sent the tweet.

he made her testimony more relevant than it would have been if he sat down and been quiet. >> i think today was worse for him. than two days ago. >> started off better. and then that tweet came out and it just that floored him. today was worse. for him. >> worst day. timing was poor for a tweet. >> that was a real influential moment as an american wisconsin voter. >> yeah. he keeps stirring the pot. it's his style. >> before the first hearing on wednesday, none of them were ready to say the president should be impeached. now change of opinion. >> he should be impeached. >> what about you? >> i haven't made a decision. >> he should be impeached. i'm going to wait and see if administrative staff will comply with the subpoenas.

to determine whether or not he should be removed. >> i still say not to impeach. and not to be removed. >> i think that the two days of testimony have brought forward that donald trumps abs actions have gone to serve himself. regarding our interactions with ukraine. and i think that on that basis for serving himself rather than america. he should be impeached. >> any of the people feel he should be impeached in the house? also the senate should convict him and remove him? >> no one in the group is ready to take that step. the two men who favor impeachment say if and when the president is impeached they would pay close attention to the senate trial. before they make the personal decision. i want to mention that no one on the panel took any joy in what they heard this week. they are quite sad. >> understandably. thanks. up next a discussion of what the

voters had to say and a look ahead to next weeks testimony.

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.

tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. at the end of this long and certainly historic week, some

minds are changing a little bit and plenty more testimony to come. back with our legal and political team. scott, you spoke about the president's tweet, was it a good move? some voters, were you surprised by the sentiments that echoed, the impact that had on them? >> no, i wasn't surprised. because these people already, even though they're undecided voters, they already have an impression of the president. for the ones who have partial negative opinions, a tweet like that reinforces the negative feels. and for people who support him, even them, sometimes they're like -- and the feeling is that it was gratuitous, unnecessary.

there are a lot of people the president should attack, but she's not one of them. and you can see why it was a strategic blunder. >> and i want to put on the screen who will be testifying next week. there are a lot of people still to come. some of the names are familiar, but certainly on tuesday, volker, sondland, hill, what are you expecting for next week? >> it's going to be intense. if you think about the fact that this week it was only three witnesses. and we felt like we were drinking from a fire hose all week. because we learned so much. >> and there were surprises even though they had already given testimony. >> exactly. we thought we knew what they were going to say. and even though, even when the

witnesses said things that we read in the transcripts, the interaction is so different. >> and fiona hale, because of how close she is to bolton, she's in the white house, she's definitely more in the trump, was more in the trump apparatus. >> what are you thinking for next week? >> i think with each witness, we learn a little bit more detail and context. the basic facts haven't changed of the allegations, of what the president and his, people like

jewel giuliani and sondland, it hasn't changed. but the order to withhold the funding to ukraine, we're hearing that came from the president. that's one more detail of something that we didn't know yesterday. >> yeah. >> and i think that's what will happen with each witness and it's just going to be in a greater volume next week. >> yeah. just in the brief amount of time, ross, what are you expe expecting? >> i'm looking for the big picture. this week set up an interesting dynamic, where chairman schiff did a good job, and the lawyer for the democrats did a good job, especially today, of eliciting testimony and painting a picture. the republicans today took a backse backseat. you didn't see any sort of

undermining of the witness. next week, i think, will be interesting, to see if that holds. one of the telling things about the president's tweet today, which i think he tweeted because there is no kind of cohesive defense strategy. >> i have to leave it there. continued coverage of the impeachment hearings is next. but with less carbon footprint. can we have both? at bp, we're working every day to make energy that's cleaner and better. and we see possibilities everywhere.

. frequent heartburn? not anymore. the prilosec otc two-week challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

welcome to fowler, indiana. home to three of bp's wind farms. which, every day, generate enough electricity to power over 150,000 homes. and of course, fowler. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere.

hello, and thank you for joining us again this evening. this is cnn special live coverage of the public impeachment proceedings. i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm jim sciutto. the day ending with significant testimony from behind closed doors. cnn obtained the opening statement from the official who overheard a phone call between president trump and his ambassador to the eu. david holmes told lawmakers he personally heard trump demand an investigation of the bidens. and said that president trump did not give an expletive about ukraine. saying that he only cares about stuff that ben