and that is on top of new cnn reporting. sources tell cnn president trump has again said he wants to fire witnesses who have testified against him in the impeachment hearings prompting his aides to consider moving those witnesses, some of them out of the white house and back to their home departments within the government. late today we learned about a new addition to the list of now nine officials and former officials who will be going before the house intelligence committee on television starting tomorrow. the ninth is david holmes, a seasoned diplomat and a staffer at the u.s. embassy in kiev. he is set to testify thursday. now, holmes, you'll recall, has already told lawmakers in closed door session about the phone call he overheard the president and gordon sondland have a day after the july 25th conversation with ukraine's president. the one the president continues to describe this way. >> it was a perfect call. an absolutely perfect phone conversation. it was perfect. that was perfect. the conversation was perfect.

i made a perfect call. not a good call. perfect call. >> so far he is really the only one describing it as a perfect call. but the day after that allegedly perfect call, there was another made from an outdoor table of a restaurant in kiev in ukraine with the president talking so loudly that gordon sondland the ambassador to the european union, had to hold the phone away from his ears at some points. i'm quoting now from david holmes' testimony who was sitting there at the table, quote, i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explain that he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump then clarify that the ambassador was in ukraine. ambassador sondland replied yes he was in ukraine and went on to state that president zelensky loves your ass. i then heard president trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to. the call ended. he asked sondland whether the president, quote, gives a shit about ukraine. sondland replies that he does not saying he only cares about,

quote, big stuff, unquote, that benefits him, namely the biden investigation. and we have just learned from one top republican source that a number of gop lawmakers were more shaken by that testimony than they let on in public. we'll have more on that shortly. now, as for sondland the eu ambassador who somehow became one of the president's three lieutenants on ukraine, that's if you take out the million dollars he gave to the trump inaugural committee, he's going to testify on wednesday. as you already know he has already revised his testimony once in the face of contradicting accounts from nearly every other witness. the question now, will he alter his story once again? and tomorrow the committee hears from kurt volker the former special envoy to ukraine. like ambassador sondland pieces of volker's closed door testimony have also been contradicted by several key witnesses. so look for some tough questions on that. look also for the president to do what he's done to so many others who testified or said they would, namely bully them or just say he doesn't know them. we'll start with the latter.

here's the president talking about gordon sondland, whom he once called a great american. >> let me just say i hardly know the gentleman. but this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo. and he still says that. >> actually sondland now says in his revised testimony that he, quote, presumed that the aid's suspension had, quote, become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement, i.e., a public declaration by the ukrainians that they were investigating the bidens. in any case, the barely know him defense is not the only one for the president. as we mentioned there are the insults like calling people who testify to things that don't comport to the president's narrative, never trumpers. people who he has earlier described as being human scum. here is the president this weekend tweeting about jennifer williams, who will testify publicly tomorrow after the transcript of her closed door testimony came out. quote, tell jennifer williams whoever that is to read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released

statement from ukraine. then she should meet with the other never trumpers, who i don't know and mostly never even heard of, and work out a better presidential attack. now, the president as you know lashed out on friday at marie yovanovich, the ousted ambassador to ukraine, while she was actually testifying. he did not call her a never trumper but he has used the term against bill taylor, alexander vindman, who is a lieutenant colonel who testifies tomorrow, and against jennifer williams. as for her and marie yovanovitch they have something else in common. no support from their superiors. when asked about the attack today on williams, who is a senior adviser to vice president pence, his press secretary all but disowned her saying, quote, jennifer is a state department employee. as for secretary of state pompeo here is what he said today when asked about the president's attack on ambassador yovanovich. >> the state department is fully supportive not only of what we done but our ukraine policy moving forward. >> but no defense of your employees?

>> i always defend -- the greatest diplomatic court in the history of the world. very proud of the team. >> so good news, right? he always defends his employees except apparently when asked again seconds later about yovanovitch. >> i don't have anything to say. i'll defer to the white house about particular statements and the like. i don't have anything else to say about the democrats' impeachment proceeding. >> well, that's what you call a profile in courage. now to the breaking reports about new attempts at retaliation against some of the people who either have testified or will testify this week. cnn's jim acosta is at the white house with that. jim? >> reporter: anderson, one thing we should point out before we get into that. we're just getting word from our capitol hill colleagues that the testimonies are expected to be released, the full testimony given by david holmes and david hale. david holmes being that diplomatic official in ukraine who overheard -- who says he overheard the president's phone call with eu ambassador gordon sondland. you were just talking about some

of this a few moments ago. heard the president asking gordon sondland about investigations. that testimony from david holmes is expected to be released any moment and also testimony from david hale. he's a state department official. he has been notable in all of this because he apparently heard some of the concerns that were expressed by other officials about the role that rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, was playing in all of this missiles for misinformation scheme that was going on and being conducted by members of the trump administration and allegedly by the president himself. so we should be getting some of that testimony shortly and be able to go through some of that and be able to read some of the revelations we were hearing about last friday when some of that came down. anderson, one thing we should also point out with alexander vindman, the lieutenant colonel, purple heart recipient, national security council official who is set to testify tomorrow, i've talked to a couple of trump campaign advisers this evening, who are to jennifer williams, a top official in the

vice president's office, referring to her as a never trumper. the vice president's office has pushed back and saying she doesn't really advise the vice president, that she works over at the state department. but getting back to alexander vindman, there are some concerns inside trump world, inside the trump campaign that the president could blow this up tomorrow and turn another one of these key witnesses into a sympathetic figure testifying up on capitol hill. now, getting back to what you just asked me a few moments ago, as to these concerns about retaliation, my colleague pam brown, kevin liptak, they are reporting this evening that there are concerns inside the white house that the president was entertaining the idea of essentially retaliating against alexander vindman and other officials in this inquiry by sending them back to their departments of origin. for example, vindman would go back to the defense department and so on, and has been grumbling about bill taylor because, you know, offered some pretty damaging testimony against the president.

some of this obviously ties back to mike pompeo, the secretary of state, and there are some concerns inside the white house that the president has been grumbling about mike pompeo and wondering why all these diplomatic officials are coming up to testify on capitol hill and doing damage to the president when he thought that wouldn't be something that would happen when mike pompeo was putting some of these key officials in these positions, anderson. >> i understand white house staffers were on the hill today talking to republican aides. do we know what their message to them heading into this week was? >> reporter: well, i think some of this is just getting started. tony sag and pam bondi, the former florida attorney general, they have come in to do messaging and war room, rapid response comms, if you will, for the president when it comes to this impeachment inquiry. they were talking with republican aides up on capitol hill and sort of laying out a strategy for what's to come. they're kind of parachuting into the middle of all of this. as we've seen so far in this inquiry in these public hearings

that got started last week and will be ramping up this week with a number of officials, there are all sorts of surprises that are coming out of these hearings that the white house is just not prepared for. it's hard to rapid respond to things like david holmes' testimony, which has caught everybody by surprise over here at the white house late last week, anderson. >> jim acosta, thanks very much. more now on what to expect this week, starting tomorrow morning with the testimony of jennifer williams and lieutenant colonel alexander vaindman. joining us is congressman raja krishnamoorthi. what do you make of this new reporting that the president has been considering moving impeachment witnesses. >> i think this is part of a pattern with the president. it's very unfortunate, but it's not surprising, and it's another form of witness intimidation where the president's basically saying if you come out and tell the truth and if you persist

with coming forward before our committees, there will be consequences. that's a form ofretaliation, a form of intimidation at this point. so we're very, very disturbed by those particular pieces of news. >> and ambassador sondland is going to be testifying this week. there obviously remain gaps, inconsistencies in his earlier testimony. is the committee's focus wednesday going to be attempting to clarify exactly what he knew and when he knew it because even this call that david holmes has now testified about hearing, that is not something that ambassador sondland, even in his revised testimony when he amended it after hearing the testimony of other people that contradicted his original testimony, he still didn't mention this call. >> right. well, i'd like to think that, you know, his memory was refreshed when he heard of what

other people said subsequent to his deposition, and that's what prompted the clarification in his addendum. perhaps he's going to remember more on wednesday as well. there's just so many events, so many meetings and phone calls and indeed text messages where he's a central figure. i'll just point to one which he mentioned in his declaration, which is the warsaw meeting on september 1st where he and mr. morrison and ambassador sondland all say that basically ambassador sondland told the ukrainian very high-ranking official, mr. yermak, that military assistance is conditioned on the announcement of an investigation, period, end of story. and so that's very, very important and, you know, i think there might be other revelations that he makes at his open hearing testimony as well. >> is it clear to you why

ambassador sondland was even involved in ukraine? i mean he's the ambassador to the european union. there's obviously a lot of stuff going on with the european union. ukraine is not part of that. i mean is it clear the chain that got him in the middle of all this other than being a trump donor? >> well, it's not entirely clear. what we know is that marie yovanovich, the ambassador to the ukraine, was really, you know, at the heart of our foreign policy in ukraine all the way up until she was unceremo unceremo unceremoniously fired. the three amigos, volker, sondland and perry, under the direction of giuliani and the president, commandeered our foreign policy at that point in the ukraine, not necessarily in the best interests of america, but the evidence points to them basically operating in the best interests of giuliani's clients, people like donald trump and

other international actors. and so, you know, those three amigos parachuting in around may 20th and then being told on may 23rd in the oval office that they are basically going to be taking charge of ukraine policy is really central to the alleged scheme that happened here in ukraine. >> congressman, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you very much. >> absolutely. thank you. we are expecting any minute to get the full transcript of david holmes' testimony. we'll bring that to you when we do. our legal and political team joins us next to talk about the breaking news, the week's testimony, and more. later, legendary white house correspondent sam donaldson on how what we're seeing compares to what he saw covering watergate. you're covered. (dramatic music) and you're saving money, because you bundled home and auto. sarah, get in the house. we're all here for you. all: all day, all night. (dramatic music)

great job speaking calmly and clearly everyone. that's how you put a customer at ease. hey, did anyone else hear weird voices while they were in the corn? no. no. me either. whispering voice: jamie. what? a stampede unleashed 55 years ago. built for freedom, power and rebellion. and just when you think you know where they're going. they do something unexpected. something that moves us all forward and holds nothing back.

the all-electric mustang mach-e. the newest member of the family.

the all-electric mustang mach-e. t-mobile's newest most powerful signal is here. experience it with the amazing, new iphone 11. and right now, t-mobile has the best deal on iphone. get 4 lines of unlimited with 4 iphone 11 included for only $35 a line. all on a signal that goes farther than ever before. that's right. get 4 unlimited lines and 4 iphone 11 for $35 a line. only at t-mobile. some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks...

and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. more breaking news. we've just gotten transcripts of the full closed-door testimony of david holmes and david hale, david holmes a last-minute addition to the public roster and will cap off the week going before the intelligence camera in front of cameras on thursday.

his opening statement, which cnn originally obtained exclusively caused a stir when it became public on friday. we now have the complete transcript of his testimony. cnn's phil mattingly and our team in washington are going through the full q&a. phil, i know you've just gotten this. anything stand out? >> reporter: i think there's a couple things i'm looking for here. obviously we had the opening statement, the explosive and i would say rather expolice the opening statement from david holmes last thing. i think the thing most people are most interested in the wake of that closed door deposition is what else he had to say. that deposition lasted more than six hours long. his opening statement was ten pages. that's a lot more than ten pages when you have six hours. obviously there's a lot of attention and rightfully so with the detail of how he overheard the call between u.s. ambassador to the eu gordon sondland and president trump at an outdoor tavern, but he also had details

in that ten-page opening statement related to another key component of the democratic impeachment investigation, and that is the decision to withhold sum u.s. security aid to ukraine, the details of what john bolton was thinking about, and what ukrainians were thinking about that. hearing from ukrainian officials, what they knew, when they knew it, and how active they were in trying to reverse that decision or try and move that decision. those are going to be the key elements that i'm looking at and also other key thing. keep an eye on what the republican questioning is, how they work through this process. they knew this was coming. they knew it was going to be explosive when william taylor first kind of unveiled this bombshell, if you will, during his open testimony in front of the house committees on wednesday of last week. how they decided to interact with mr. holmes, not only will it be interesting from an informational purpose how much he knows, but keep in mind he will be testifying on thursday. what this deposition says will be a very good entree into what he's going to say publicly and frankly how and if he's able to connect this directly to president trump. that's been the question that's

outstanding. obviously the call is pretty notable but what else he can say on that front is what we're going to be digging through now. >> nine witnesses testifying publicly this week, holmes included, two of them facing tough questions about why key portions of their accounts differ from most of the others, all of them potentially facing fresh twitter wrath from the president. sources familiar with the matter tell us the ones who work on assignment at the white house might see careers hurt or at least moved out of the white house and back to their home departments at the behest of the president. there's that and new reporting on the impact of holmes' closed-door testimony. according to one top congressional gop source, several hill gop lawmakers were more, quote, shaken by david holmes' testimony than they publicly let on. behind closed doors, our source tells us many expressed frustration that gordon sondland would place a call to the president in a public restaurant from ukraine and are concerns that holmes' testimony was the most convincing argument for president trump's direct involvement in the campaign to

pressure ukraine. again, he was just added as a witness today. the final one of the week. and we have folks going over his testimony behind closed doors, the transcript of which was just released. joining us right now is jeffrey toobin, kirsten powers, david gergen, and former sufrrick san. jeff, the reporting about moving some impeachment witnesses potentially on loan to the white house back to their home departments ahead of schedule, is that okay? i mean obviously the president can have whoever he wants to have working around him. >> he can, and we can draw our own conclusions about why they're being moved back. i mean, you know, i'm reminded of a line from phillip roth. the smallness of people was simply crushing. i mean, you know, the smallness of donald trump to punish these people for answering questions under oath when they've been

subpoenaed is just -- but, you know, it's par for the course. i don't think it counts as obstruction of justice. i don't think it's witness intimidation. i don't think it's a crime or an impeachable offense, but it's just really, really small. >> david, i mean if some democrats considered the president tweeting about ambassador yovanovich witness intimidation, do you think there's anything, you know, not right about moving people out of their positions because they testified? >> >> well, i think it's unbecoming. it's sort of cheap and cheapens the presidency. is it against the rules? no, not formally. it's the same thing that applied to ambassador yovanovitch, the president had a right to bring her back but did it in such a mean spirited and contemptuous, dismissive way and very injurious to her. you just don't like to see a president setting that kind of example. it would be difficult for these people to stay on in the national security council staff. there are going to be a lot of -- you know, a lot of reasons

why they probably should move on but it should be done with more grace and more appreciation of the fact that they in fact joined the whistle-blowers. their identities are known but they're also blowing whistles. >> kirsten, it will be interesting to see how the president decides to conduct himself this week whether or not, you know, he continues to tweet against witnesses or about witnesses as they are testifying. >> yeah. i mean why wouldn't he keep doing what he always does? he seems incapable of not doing that. and i do think this moving people, punishing people, right, for testifying under oath and telling the truth, i think it's thuggish. it really is -- it's beyond inappropriate in the sense that the president operates like he's a king basically. like these people are supposed to go up there and lie? they've been called before

ed congress. they're telling the truth. they should not be punished for that. they work for the u.s. government, which is something that is actually bigger than donald trump. >> senator santorum, what do you think about that? >> look, as david said it would be very uncomfortable for any of these people to go back up to the white house. i think it would be more than appropriate to let them go back to their original places and go about their business some other way. but i don't think it's thuggish. i don't think it's inappropriate. i think that it would just be sort of almost a gracious thing to do to remove them from there to be honest with you. i mean, it would just be a very difficult place for them to operate. >> it's like it was gracious for the president to let jim comey go back into private life when he got mad at him and he fired him, and it was gracious to allow the ambassador from ukraine -- >> jeff, i'm not saying he'll do it in a gracious way. i fully anticipate he won't do it in a gracious way.

but i'm saying the act itself of removing them from the white house i think and wholly appropriate given what they're going to be testifying over the next few days. >> if they're so concerned about it, they could request to be moved, right? i mean this is retaliation. this is punishment. >> no, it's not retaliation. look, you know, these places are not big organizations. the white house is a small place, and you're going to have someone there who was just, you know, on national tv as, quote, a star witness for someone who wants to impeach a president. and to go back and work in that office is going to be a very uncomfortable and everybody to be involved with, not just those people. so i think if you really are concerned about a working, functioning operation at that white house, you would probably move some people out who are going to be a detriment to that. >> but none of these people said they wanted the president to be impeached. i mean, in fact, like charge d'affaires taylor said, went out of his way to say, look, i'm not part of this discussion. i'm just here as a witness of fact. david? >> go ahead, david.

>> i want to come back on this. anderson, i do think -- listen, i think they ought to be treated with graciousness. but i fef you're the president the united states and you've got people in your organization who have in effect become disaffected and have testified against you in some fashion, i don't think it's unreasonable for a president to sort of thing that's not a great team player on my particular team, you know? i just think they were loaned over to the white house. i think they were extremely brave. i think they ought to be rewarded and, you know, appreciated, which the president won't do. but there ought to be ways to do that. but at the end of the day, you know, you don't to have disgruntled people in the middle of your high powered team. >> but, remember, they're going back to the state department, where secretary pompeo won't even utter their names, won't even say a kind word about them.

>> good point. >> it's not like they have a safe harbor to go back to. >> we've got to leave it there. everyone stick around. a key pillar of the president's defense, that he did nothing wrong, is on shakier ground tonight. new cnn reporting on that is next. at bayer, we're helping put more gold

into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across

cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room.

hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today.

one of the pillars of president trump's defense is the contention that the ukrainians felt no pressure to launch any investigations. here's house republican jim jordan. >> no pressure, no linkage. we have the two individuals on the call, president trump, president zelensky who said there was no linkage, no pressure. no pressure, no pushing, no linkage.

>> well, that said there is more indication today that the no pressure defense seems to be shrinking. during closed door testimony former national security aide fiona hill who testifies publicly on thursday said that several white house officials had learned in may that ukraine's president was indeed feeling pressure from rudy giuliani to start investigations into the bidens. she said that she had heard this from an american businessman in a meeting with the ukrainian president's team. hill also testified she then relayed the details of this meeting first reported by the associated press to her boss john bolton as well as bill taylor. joining me now, back, jeffrey toobin, kirsten powers, rick santorum. snofr santorum, doesn't this seem to undercut the president and certainly congressman jordan's argument that the ukrainians didn't feel pressure to conduct investigations into president trump's political opponents? >> well, i mean, i guess, you know, what is the definition of pressure?

i mean, i say that in that i think what jordan is talking about primarily is pressure as a -- feeling that they were -- something was going to happen. they weren't going to get their money in order to, if they didn't do that. i think it's fairly clear that the president wanted the ukrainians to investigate the bide bidens. the president said so. i mean repeatedly throughout the course of the summer that certainly has been the case. so if pressure means that they were asked, i think what jordan is saying, pressure means that you actually have something that you're using to pressure them other than simply asking. all this says is the president asked and that the ukrainians felt like maybe they should do something. >> and the money was withheld. >> again -- >> and the $300 million was withheld. that seems like that's pressure to me. >> okay. the rooster crows when the sun comes up. one is not a cause for the other. the reality is, yes, the money was withheld, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to withhold that money, which has been laid out repeatedly.

the idea just because the money was withheld, it was withheld for this purpose, you can't tie those two together. >> but they were also trying to get a meeting with the white house, you know, and kurt volker, who actually said that he didn't think it was tied to the money, he did say that he believed that the ukrainians understood that it was tied to the white house, or at least he understood it was tied to the white house meeting that they were seeking and they weren't getting. so they were able to figure out the fact that they had been asked by the president to do certain things. they'd been pressured by giuliani to do certain things, and they weren't doing them, and they weren't getting what they wanted. so it really isn't that hard to figure out that there was pressure happening. >> i would just say the reality is that, you know, that sondland also said no quid pro quo. the president, in his call -- >> but then he changed his testimony. >> the president, in the call, is clear there was no connection

between the money and what he was talking about with giuliani and the investigation. look, just because -- and this is where i talk about giving the president the doubt or not. you can want an investigation, and you could hold back aid. it doesn't necessarily tie the two together. >> although, david gergen, if you have a conversation in which when aid is brought up, the first thing you reference right after is a favor of investigations into, you know, a fictional server or, you know, no evidence of a server in ukraine and the bidens, that does, you can argue -- it's an arguable point. >> can't say it's not arguable. >> i think it's -- i think you can't question it because it's obviously a linkage. and sondland, you know, is going to -- his testimony becomes pivotal this week because he himself has testified he told

the ukrainians that you're much more likely to get something done if you move on this announcement and you go investigate the bidens. but let me just say, anderson, the think the bigger point about this week -- i mean it is a pivotal week -- is up until now, the white house has very successfully blocked our view from the oval office. we've got the telephone call, but beyond that they've very carefully concealed -- go to that famous howard baker question from watergate. what did the president know, and when did he know it? i think this week we're going to get some answers to that, and particularly the testimony about this restaurant conversation with the president, which allegedly the president said, what's happening in the investigations? are they going to do our work for us? he told that to our ambassador with these other guys sitting there. so i think this week could be really major in taking this case inside the oval office. every scandal around the white house, the question always is,

did the president -- was the president involved? did it get into the oval office? if the president himself was personally engaged, it's a big deal. >> but we ought to look at the evidence. holmes' testimony just came out. he said he heard the president say, what about the investigations? >> right. >> then he gets off the phone, and he says he doesn't give a shit about ukraine. the only thing he cares about ukraine is getting political advantage about it. he doesn't care about ukraine except for the improper purpose. >> yeah. we've got to end it there. no doubt i think we'll be talking about this all week. thank you all for being with us tonight. up next, legendary white house correspondent sam donaldson joins me. ime to make mopping history. braava jet, start mopping. introducing the braava jet m6 robot mop. with an adjustable precision jet spray and advanced pad system for mopping or sweeping,

braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. a better way to mop. without any effort. the braava jet m6 robot mop. only from irobot. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot.

when it comes to breaking news, it certainly sometimes feels like drinking from niagara falls, and it's only monday, which is why going into a very full week we are always glad for perspective from our next guest, former abc news afrpgor and white house correspondent sam donaldson. thanks for being with us. you said when you were assigned at the outset to cover watergate

you had no idea how important it would be to the history of the country. do you think we have a sense yet of how important or not important these proceedings may turn out to be? >> well, i think we do. a lot of people think it is going to be very important from the standpoint of being against president trump. but a lot of people clearly think just the opposite. you know, let's look at nixon and trump. similarities, they both lie about the charges they're being investigated about them. they both intensified their war against the press. i mean, john mitchell, the attorney general general in the nixon administration, said of katherine graham, the publisher of "the washingto of "the washington post," she better watch out or she'll get her tit caught in a wringer. thank you, john. appreciate your language. here again some of the language coming from the trump administration they win. but, you know, there are differences, anderson. i think they are very important. the guys and gals showed up. the nixon people, they came and testified before committees. i mean, the treasury secretary, ed mitchell himself the attorney

general, pat buchanan the aide at the white house in nixon's day who prepared and helped prepare the enemy's list. he came and testified. that was the difference. but i think the one that really interests me is the republicans. there was a big difference between the two sides then. one side, yes, defending president nixon. another side defending president trump but in a far different way. >> explain that because carl bernstein and others have pointed to, you know, republicans turning and going to the president, essentially saying, look, you know, you've got to step down for the good of the country. >> yeah, that was at the end when they heard the smoking gun, the tape. but i'm talking about -- let's take the watergate committee. fierce partisanship in the sense that the republicans sincerely, i believe, believe the president. it wasn't that they said, oh, i've got to get re-elected. they thought he was being misused here. they called it a witch hunt.

have you heard that term recently? the democrats, of course, said they thought there was a smoking gun here somewhere if they could find it. and of course john dean said, yes, in fact, the president said i can raise a million dollars if we need it for hush money, but it was dean's word against the white house. that's all they had. but they conducted those hearings -- take a look at the tape -- with civility. they didn't call each other names. the republicans didn't say, the democrats, you know how they are, they're terrible or anything of the thinks that you hear today. and they tried to get at the facts. and then later on in the house judiciary committee where the articles of impeachment are prepared, there was a distinguished lawyer from ohio who was hired by the republicans on the committee to take their side of it, and of course that meant the president's defense to an extent. several days before it ended, jenner resignresigned. he said, i can't in good conscience continue. and you saw six republicans vote

aye on article one. caldwell butler from virginia, and larry hogan, whose son is now the governor of maryland. and bill cohen, who was the young guy from maine, went on to the senate as you know and later become secretary of defense in the second clinton administration. these were real heroes because they said, you look at the evidence, and you've got to say aye. today, how many republicans -- because they see the evidence. they're not all stupid and dumb. they're smart people. but for various reasons, they don't care about the evidence. compare those two. there's no comparison. >> and imagine if nixon had twitter. i mean it's so fascinating to hear the nixon tapes now, to hear what he was saying behind the scenes. if he had been able to, you know, in the heat of the moment or, you know, late at night or early in the morning just tweet out some of those thoughts that he said on tape, extraordinary. sam donaldson, it is always a pleasure to talk to you. thank you. >> thank you.

coming up, david holmes describing a moment he says he had never seen before, not in his entire career. it's from the transcript just released of his closed-door testimony. you don't want to miss it. when i rent a car, i never compromise. too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

it's just right! t-mobile's newest most powerful signal is here. experience it with the amazing, new iphone 11. and right now, t-mobile has the best deal on iphone. get 4 lines of unlimited with 4 iphone 11 included for only $35 a line. all on a signal that goes farther than ever before. that's right. get 4 unlimited lines and 4 iphone 11 for $35 a line. only at t-mobile. a stampede unleashed 55 years ago.

built for freedom, power and rebellion. and just when you think you know where they're going. they do something unexpected. something that moves us all forward and holds nothing back. the all-electric mustang mach-e. the newest member of the family.

moments ago we got transcripts of closed door testimony from including david holmes in kiev. phil mattingly and his team have been going through it. >> i want to point out, look, we all saw the opening statement. he's now questioned about the opening statement from adam schiff. schiff sondland went on to say he loves your ass. meaning he loves the president. he's going to do the investigation. yes, he's going to do it. and president zelensky will do anything you ask him? yes, sir. i think you said you had quite a clear recollection, it left an impression on you, didn't it? this is the important part, anderson. he said this was an extremely

distinctive experience in my foreign service career. i've never seen anything like this, someone calling the president from a mobile phone at a restaurant and then having a conversation of this level of candor, colorful language. there's just so much about the call that was so remarkable that i remember it vividly. this is one of the questions going into the testimony, he didn't take notes and didn't have a recorder, how do you remember this? when you have a career foreign officer outdoors at a tavern and someb somebedy picks up his cell phone, an unsecured line, this is why he remembers it so clearly. he also makes clear he told many people about this because he was so stunned by what he heard and had the recollection of all of this. i also want to make one other point. he walked through the behind the scenes of the relationship. he made clear that rudy giuliani was an early actor and ambassador gordon sondland. you'll see him testimony by himself not just a player at the tavern, at the meeting but throughout this process, based on his connection to the president and ukraine policy and almost certainly because of this

testimony going to be a central witness on wednesday, holmes testifies on thursday, pay attention to sondland on wednesday as well. >> and is he a reliable witness given this reversal already. does he remember this phone call as well as he says he does. phil mattingly, thank you for that. the ridiculist is next. tom: the american people can fix anything.

the problem is corporations and the people who run and own them have purchased our democracy. here's the difference between me and the other candidates. i don't think we can fix our democracy from the inside. i don't believe washington politicians and big corporations will let that happen. the only way we can make change happen is from the outside. for me, this comes down to whether you trust the politicians or the people. and if you say you trust the people, are you willing to stand up to the insiders and the big corporations, and give the people the tools they need to fix our democracy. a national referendum.

term limits. eliminating corporate money in politics. making it easy to vote. i trust the people. and as president, i will give you tools we need to fix our democracy. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message.

some farms grow food. this one grows fuel. ♪ exxonmobil is growing algae for biofuels. that could one day power planes, propel ships, and fuel trucks... and cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half. algae. its potential just keeps growing. ♪ its potential just keeps growing. - [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. motor? nope.

not motor? it's pronounced "motaur." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. time now for the ridiculist. tonight there is word from the department of both hold your breath that the president might want to testify in front of nancy pelosi. after nancy pelosi suggested the president might want to appear and tell his side of the story the president tweeted i will strongly consider it. i don't have a law degree but i have spent a bit of time studying the law and order and criminal minds and i've seen barney miller and jonathan and jennifer hart and max, the butler. i know the president is not going to testify. i know this.

because i've watched the shows. and i know that you know it. and i know that you know that he knows it. but my question is does he know that you know that he knows it? i'm not sure he does. i don't know that he knows that. if he doesn't know that you and i know that he knows he isn't going to ever testify, then he must think we are all idiots. i mean, he's played this, gee, i really want to testify game before. maybe he doesn't remember, which is scary, but everyone else remembers. it was just back in the mueller investigation. >> i would love to speak. i would love to. nobody wants to speak more than me. >> would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events? >> 100%. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it actually. >> are you more likely to set an interview? >> my lawyers are working on that. i always wanted to do an interview. >> i would love to speak, i would love to go. nothing i want to do more. >> really nothing you want to do more than that? really? the president refused to be interviewed by mueller's team. no attorney in their right mind

would let him speak under oath. he doesn't want to speak under oath. he did submit to take home questions that his lawyers answered for him. and have earned rave reviews from incomplete to inadequate. he wanted you to think he was eager to testify but was held back by those tough talking lawyers but he didn't want to answer questions under oath. nancy pelosi did offer him the option of another take-home quiz. i hope if he does go that route, it's handled by himself favorite legal eagle, janine pirrot. >> if he called me and said i want to give you opposition research on my opponent, i'd be on the first trolley to hell to get it and any politician that tells you otherwise is a bald faced liar.

>> toot-toot! trolly to hell. by the way, doesn't like people taking notes around him, but he might want to ask steven miller to keep track of at least some of his lies so he doesn't embarrass us and himself by repeating them over and over. it just gets awkward. you know what i mean? it's like when your relative repeats the same sentence minutes after he's already said something. intimidating a witness is easy. but being one, that's not, in congress or on the ridiculist. >> and the news continues. i want it hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> we have breaking news literally coming in right now. there is new witness testimony that just dropped that provides a window into this week's impeachment storm. and other news on how the president may be hoping to retaliate against those testifying.

this is the week of the heavy hitters in the impeachment inquiry. if it doesn't make sense at the end of this week, it never will. so we have breaking news. let's get after it. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> all right, first, we can get past the headline about the diplomat who overheard the eu ambassador, sondland, on the phone with the president, okay? we know a lot more about that experience, about that reaction, about why it mattered. phil mattingly is on capitol hill. we don't usually do this but i don't usually get this kind of information that i can't process alone. phil, thank you for jumping up for me on this. what do we know about mr. holmes?