it is midnight here in washington, and m this special hour of 360, we're looking ahead at what could be the most dramatic day yet of impeachment testimony. we saw four witnesses testify today, three of whom were on the president's july 25th call with the ukrainian president, one of whom although he says he saw nothing wrong with it, he nonetheless rushed to tell the lawyers about it. we're doing our best to show how it all fits into all the testimony we've seen so far in public and behind closed doors. now, also tonight the people at the center of it all who certainly could say a lot but are not talking -- mick mulvaney, john bolton, rudy giuliani. they certainly could add to what we know. that said, we learned plenty

today including from two witnesses, kurt volker and tim morrison, who showed a degree of sympathy for elements of the president's case. first, though, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman who, safe to say, did not. he was outraged by what he heard on the july 25th and driven by duty, he says, by the country that took his family in. >> i'm grateful for my father's brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an american citizen and public servant where i can live free, free of fear for mine and my family's safety. dad, i'm sitting here today in the u.s. capitol, talking to our elected professionals. talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union and come here to the united states of america in search of a better life for our family. do not worry. i will be fine for telling the truth. >> i will be fine for telling the truth, he said.

colonel vindman was asked about the president's biden allegations. so was jennifer williams, who is a special adviser on europe and russia to vice president pence. >> now, are you aware of any credible allegations or evidence to support this notion that vice president biden did something wrong or against u.s. policy with regard to ukraine? >> i am not. >> ms. williams, are you familiar with any credible evidence to support this theory against vice president biden? >> no, i'm not. >> republicans for their part tried again today to make this about the whistle-blower rather than the witnesses who so far have largely substantiated his or her report. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistle-blower was or is. >> i do not know who the whistle-blower is, that is correct. >> so how is it possible for you

to name these people and then out the whistle-blower? >> per the advice of my counsel, i have been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. >> this is -- are you aware this is the intelligence committee that's conducting an impeachment hearing? >> of course i am. >> wouldn't the appropriate place for you to come to to testify would be the intelligence committee about someone within the intelligence community? >> ranking member, per the advice of my counsel and the instructions from the chairman, i've been advised not to provide any specifics on who i've spoken to with inside the intelligence community. what i can offer is that these were properly cleared individuals or was a properly cleared individual with a need to know. >> if i could interject, counsel is correct. the whistle-blower has the right, statutory right to anonymity. these proceedings will not be

used to out the whistle-blower. >> on another gop allegation, one that the president has mentioned from time to time or quite often is that these public servants, some of whom he himself has hired, are instead working against him. >> ms. williams, are you a never trumper? >> i'm not sure an official definition of a never trumper. >> would you describe yourself that way? >> i would not, know. >> the day after you appeared for your deposition, lieutenant colonel, president trump called you a never trumper. colonel vindman, would you call yourself a never trumper? >> representative, i'd call myself never partisan. >> i should point out one of the definitions the president has given of never trumpers is human scum. lieutenant colonel vindman provided much of the day's drama including with this answer to the question of why he chose to rain concerns about the july 25th call. >> congressman, because this is america, this is the country i've served and defended, that all of my brothers have served,

and here, right matters. >> thank you, sir. yield back. [ applause ] >> lieutenant colonel vindman was on the call, so was jennifer williams and both were asked about it. >> so let's do it again. let's do the substance. can we do that because we've had a lot of dust kicked up. ms. williams, you heard the call with your own ears, right? >> yes, sir. >> not secondhand, not hearsay. you heard the president speak. you heard his voice on the call. >> correct. >> and your conclusion was what he said about investigating the bidens was, your words, unusual and inappropriate, i believe. am i right? >> that was my testimony. >> and mr. vindman, you were treated to a july 10th meeting in the white house where you heard ambassador sondland raise investigations, conditioning a white house meeting on that, investigations that you thought were unduly political. i believe that's how you described them. and you went to nsc counsel and you reported it, right? >> correct.

>> and then later you too were on the white house call, am i right? you heard it with your own ears? >> correct. >> not secondhand, not from somebody else, not hearsay, right? >> correct. >> you heard the president's voice on the call? >> i did. >> and you heard him raise that subject again, that ambassador sondland had raised before about investigating the bidens, right? >> i did. >> and i want to ask you when you heard him say that, what was the first thought that went through your mind? >> frankly i couldn't believe what i was hearing. it was probably an element of shock that maybe in certain regards, my worst fear of how our ukraine policy could play out was playing out, how this was likely to have significant implications for u.s. national security. >> and you went immediately and you reported it, didn't you? >> i did. >> why? >> because that was my duty. >> later in the day, it was tim morrison and kurt volker taking questions. volker, the former special envoy

to ukraine, breaking from what he told lawmakers in his closed door deposition on a central point in the democrats' case for impeachment. >> i did not know that president trump or others had raised vice president biden with the ukrainians, where i conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former vice president. in retrospect, for the ukrainians, it would clearly have been confusing. in hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the ukrainian company burisma as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden. i saw them as very different, the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. in retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. >> it was a very full and long day, a very big day ahead tomorrow. back to talk about it, the hardest working people in late night news. big picture, david, is this where you expected things to be,

you know, two weeks into this? >> you know, like i said, i think there are parallel story lines going on here. i think that the democrats are being pretty methodical in putting a case together here and pretty disciplined in not taking the bait from republicans on the panel. the republicans put jim jordan, who is in certain ways a kind of a very skillful political fog machine, on the committee to kick up a lot of dirt and dust. this whole issue of the whistle-blower that he and nunes keep raising and some of the others, you know, i think feeds the sort of conspiracy theorists, you know, the notion that this was all an effort to take the president down, a bloodless coup. i think the republicans are playing a different game. that game is to keep people in the tribe and democrats are

trying to lay out a case. and i think as i said earlier, i think they're both in certain ways having some success here. >> nia, i mean to david's point, the way that the republicans are going about this, how do you think it is playing obviously to the base it plays one way, but to independents, to others out here who -- >> yeah. i don't think we know yet, right? i mean we know that the democrats have gone aw ways of convincing the ma rt jority of american public that the president should be impeached and removed from office. i think that's something like 51%, and as these hearings are going on, as the behind closed doors depositions were happening and being leaked. but we don't know because this is a phase we're going through. we'll hear the testimony from sondland tomorrow. we'll hear more testimony later in the week, and then there's the whole senate part of this if this in fact goes to impeachment articles. i think you're right. there are two different games

going on here, and the republicans i think should take heart from the fact that so far house republicans are very much sticking together and backing this president. >> let me just make this one point. i've said i think for weeks and weeks and weeks we've had these discussions, and i've always been consistent in where i think this is going to do. i do think at the end of the day, the president will be impeached because the facts are very stubborn here. >> impeached in the house. >> impeached in the house but not convicted in the senate. and i think what you're going to hear is a different tenor in the senate from republicans who will say what he did was wrong. it was inappropriate. it shouldn't have happened, but we should not remove him from office for it, and we should allow the american people to make that judgment. and i think that's exactly how this thing is going to play out. >> something big is happening, though. it's sort of, yes, they're sticking together to nia's point. but the problem is the person they're sticking together to defend isn't really playing along, and he got baited into attacking female witnesses. he got baited into attacking decorated military veterans.

and if you think about none of these things are accidental, and here's how you know the order of witnesses wasn't accidental. why didn't marie yovanovich go first? she was chronologically the first witness. well, they wanted to first establish the credibility of the investigation by putting two boring, fact witnesses up. and then they're putting out, you know, witnesses in order. >> do you think that they told the two witnesses that they were the boring ones? >> fair enough. no, but a lot of thought -- trust me because i've done this not for an impeachment, but a lot of thought goes dr for instance why aren't they going one at a time? they're stacking them and putting the unhelpful witnesses in the afternoon like they did today. this was very well thought out and the president took the baity by tweeting -- >> politics is essentially self-serving for everybody, and right now they're sticking with president trump because he is the political powerhouse in the republican party. but there's about 16 or 17 -- i can't remember the number of republicans who are retiring.

there are some who are vulnerable. we haven't seen a lot of polling in states. there are some republicans in the senate who also are vulnerable. if trump can't keep his -- you know, his powder dry on twitter and he keeps attacking witnesses, it's going to make it very hard for republicans in the senate. >> but the senate dynamics that david and you were describing i think are right on in that you are going to hear some republicans exhibit varying degrees of discomfort. it will depend by senator. what's strategically vital for the white house is that they accept that as being okay as long as that discomfort doesn't reach the level of a vote to convict. >> right. >> you know, what a senator from maine has to say or a senator from colorado has to say will be perhaps different than what a senator from a very, very red state has to say. and so as long as they're willing to accept a little flex in those messages, if it falls short of impeachment, look what trump will get. he'll be acquitted in the senate, and i'm sure he'll run around saying, i was exonerate t ed. i was acquitted. that's the best political result out of this for him. but it gets harder if he goes

after these individuals -- >> which we've seen him go after people who have strayed. we saw when some people went on sunday television and said the call was inappropriate. he said, don't get baited to say that. the call was perfect. it was perfect. he puts his people in a very bad position. >> sorry, david. look, if the debate is over, how good the performance evaluation was for the army ranger, you really don't have a good argument, and that's what republicans were left with today. literally -- you know, a factual comparison of how good his bosses thought he was. this guy is sitting there in an army ranger uniform. it's preposterous. >> can you explain a little bit, michael, about lou this wohow tn the senate? this is not something a lot of us have seen before. >> it's very important to remember that the way the constitution is set up, getting the president out, convicting and removing him is extremely

difficult. you need at least two-thirds of the senators present to vote to convict and to remove. so coming into this, everybody knows that reaching that threshold is practically impockei impossible. in fact, 19 people have been impeached by the house. less than half have been convicted and removed from office. the process is set up in a sense to fail. it's set up to default into acquittal. >> and most of those people who have been impeached, they're, what, congresspeople? >> they're lower ranked judges, lower judges. >> okay. >> so they're not big political figures. they're not the kinds of people you have big political fights over. when you go after a president, that's obviously the highest possible ranking official, and politics is present every day, permeates it. when you combine that with the fact you need at least two-thirds of the senate to agree, you get the result you just described. >> everyone stick around. a lot more tonight including my discussion with a member of the house intelligence committee, jackie speier on her thoughts and what to expect tomorrow.

we'll also dig into what may be the most anticipated public testimony, that of ambassador gordon sondland. republican sources telling cnn they are worried about what he may say. with advil liqui-gels, you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain?

till he signed up for unitedhealthcare medicare advantage. (bold music) now, it's like he has his own health entourage. he gets medicare's largest healthcare network, a free gym membership, vision, dental and more. there's so much to take advantage of. can't wait till i'm 65. a few more chairs, please. unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans, including the only plans with the aarp name. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage. too shabby! too much!

i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. the roomba i7+ with cleanng base automatic dirt disposal and allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens, so they don't escape back into the air. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™

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. - [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. s. bard gordon sondland's public appearance tomorrow is one of the most highly anticipated moments of this impeachment inquiry although i'm looking to see if the reporter behind, you know, the testimony today, who was sneezing a lot, is going to come back. we're actually going to talk to her in a few minutes. in closed-door testimony a month ago, ambassador sondland underplayed his connection to the president and his dealings with ukrainian officials. witnesses, however, have testified about his direct conversations with the president and ukrainian leaders as well as what he said president trump expected of the ukraine nsz if they wanted military aid and a white house visit or what was expected of them. tonight multiple republican sources tell cnn there's a lot of folks worried about what he will say tomorrow. i want to bring in phil mattingly on capitol hill. phil, certainly a long day of testimony. i'm wondering what lawmakers are saying tonight or this morning, i should say, about tuesday's

testimony. >> reporter: obviously split them into parties and split in the fact they have different baselines, different goals. if you're talking to democrats, i talk to a lot both in between and after the hearings. they file like their goal going into the day was it continue basically what they've been doing the last six or seven days, which is continue to lay the groundwork. what they say today is three specific witnesses on the phone call between president trump and zelensky who laid out varying degrees of concerns. first person witnesses to that call. then you had a fourth witness who essentially in kurt volker had to revised his closed-door testimony, which democrats are pointing to as a sign that what they're doing is working, as more people come forward, as more people relay what they heard, what they saw, what they went through, other witnesses are having to revise to corroborate and move forward. from a democratic perspective, continue to move forward the narrative they're trying to build here. when you talk to republicans, it's just a much narrow set of goals. essentially two things, one, keep the party together. two, make clear that president trump at least to this point has

not been definitively linked to withholding security aid to ukraine in exchange for investigations. they continually asked witnesses today whether or not they had any evidence that the president had done that. they continued to get the answer no. while it's a very narrow set of goals, they believe they achieved that as well. >> tomorrow, ambassador sondland is testifying. what are you hearing on the anticipation on that? >> it's huge. i think the most interesting thing is whether republican or democrat, what i've been struck by, including those in the closed door deposition with sondland is no one knows what's coming. you obviously had the closed door deposition, but then the amendment to that deposition, the revision to his testimony. people who have testified both behind closed door and publicly about sondland have talked about how he's a little bit of a wild card. he was a bit of a rogue actor. he boasted regularly, probably more so than he should have about his contacts with the president, his close connections to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. everybody understands this is a huge day. you noted they are very worried about what he might testify about directly what he heard from president trump.

he is the first person they've talked to who really had extensive conversations, extensive contacts with the president, with the acting chief of staff. what he says on that is going to %-p. you heard his day come up today a lot in testimony, in testimony from tim morrison and kurt volker and in the questions democrats were asking. that was intentional. they were setting a trap to some degree in terms of what they were collecting today to use tomorrow. i'm told the expectation is he will be laying out in detail a lot of what he laid out behind closed doors and some revisions to that as well. but where he ends up and specifically how he addresses his relationship to president trump, that is an open question, and that is what everybody wants to know, anderson. >> wow. phil mattingly, appreciate it. earlier i spoke to congresswoman jackie speier, who sits on the intelligence committee. we talked about what we have heard so far from the witnesses, including about gordon sondland. congresswoman speier, i'm wondering what the most important thing to you was that came out of the hearings today. >> i think one of the most

important things that came out of the hearing was that ambassador volker gave a very strong character support for vice president biden and the fact that everything he did as vice president in ukraine was consistent with the policies of our government. i would also say that mr. morrison's reluctance to come forward and say there was anything wrong with the phone call, but he went directly to the national security council lawyers after the call raises interesting questions. certainly lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony this morning was truly remarkable, and he made it very clear that he wasn't going to have a character assassination go on by the republican members and had great answers when they tried to suggest that he wasn't a team

player. and then he pulled out the performance evaluation from fiona hill that suggested that he was among the top 1%, brilliant, outstanding people in that post. >> did you believe or find credible mr. morrison's assertion, as you said, that he's on the call. he hears the president doing something which he, you know -- that the nsc didn't suggest the president say he didn't approve of, and he goes directly -- he doesn't go to his supervisor, mr. kupperman, who is refusing to testify. he goes straight to the attorneys for the nsc, and his explanation was that he hadn't seen the attorneys monitoring the call, which he said sometimes they don't do, but what he was really concerned about was that possibly the information would leak out, which is only of concern if you are concerned and unhappy with what is on the call and you

think it's inappropriate. >> you know, he subsequently said they wanted to lock down the information. again, it shows consistent efforts by the white house and others for a cover-up. we don't have all the documents we should have. in fact, we have very few documents because the state department has not cooperated at the request of the white house. but the effort to lock down the summary of the call, i think, was for the purpose of not letting it get out. >> do you think that volker and morrison were the witnesses that the republicans were hoping that they would be? >> well, they certainly were good witnesses for both sides, and i would say that they did not -- they did a very good job of being supportive of vice president biden and putting to rest the whole myth about the 2016 ukrainian involvement in

the election and the server. so they were certainly very good for the democrat narrative as well. >> once again, the former national security adviser john bolton came up numerous times today. it was made clear once again just how integral a part of this he was and how important in the best of worlds it would be to hear his testimony. i'm wondering if you think it's a mistake for democrats to not be trying to secure an appearance from him. >> i think that we would like to hear from mr. bolton, but there has been a reluctance for him to come forward without first going to court. and we don't want to have this linger in the court for six months before we hear from mr. bolton. i would say, too, that he also recommended to mr. morrison, take this to the attorneys. so mr. morrison went to the national security council attorneys. he went to the white house attorneys. there was clearly, in a number of circumstances, a concern

about linking aid to ukraine to the investigations that the president wanted on joe biden, his son, and the 2016 election. >> the other thing that was made clear is just how important ambassador sondland's testimony is going to be tomorrow. it's certainly -- i mean i'm not sure what his approach is going to be. i don't know if he's going to, you know, say he doesn't remember stuff or if he's going to try to amend some of the testimony he's already given. i'm wondering for you, what questions do you need him to answer tomorrow? >> i think he's got to be very specific, which he has not been. there's some 200 times in which he does not recall. but he's got to have a refreshed recollection around phone calls he had with the president of the united states. i think it's hard to believe that he doesn't recall specific conversations he has with the president, and i think we're going to want to confirm what

we're going to hear from mr. holmes, who was the person having lunch with him on the 26th of july, right after the phone call had taken place, in which mr. sondland called the president and the president's first words were, are they going to do the investigations? >> congresswoman speier, it's going to be another fascinating day tomorrow. appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. a lot more ahead tonight or early this morning. we'll get our legal and political analysts' take on sondland's changing time.

i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

we're talking about gordon sondland's upcoming testimony and concerns republicans have about what he might say. the question of course, will the million dollar trump inaugural donor who made that restaurant call have even more to say about what the president told him or will he say he doesn't remember. before bringing in the panel, i want to quickly show you the evolution of his testimony so far. in his original deposition he says, quote, let me state clearly inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming u.s. election would be wrong. withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. i did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings. now here's part of his amended testimony. it reads, quote, i now recall speaking individually with mr. yermak, where i said that resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many

weeks. that's a pretty big change. back now with our legal and political team. jen psaki, what's interesting about his amended statement is it still doesn't really say, you know, i said they wouldn't get aid unless they did biden investigation. so there's sort of room for him to still say, well, you know, the investigations we have been discussing, we know what they were, but he didn't say it himself. >> that's right, anderson. reading his addendum, it doesn't answer a lot of the questions that weren't answered in his first testimony that have been conflicted by other people testifying. and his addendum came out before david holmes did the closed-door testimony on friday. so the big question here is which gordon sondland is going to appear tomorrow. he is somebody who is not a trump loyalist. he's not close to trump. i mean he may have become close to trump, but he hasn't been for years. he gave to jeb bush. he's given to democrats. how does he want to end the day

tomorrow? we don't know the answer to that, but that will answer the question as to how forthcoming he will be with his testimony. >> scott. >> mark meadows in "the washington post" tonight says this whole thing comes down to one guy. so it doesn't seem like republicans know exactly what he's going to say. you know, he did in his amended statement say that public corruption investigations, plural. i'm wondering if he's going to show up and say, well, we were interested in a lot of different investigations and, yes, maybe the biden thing was part of it, but it wasn't the only thing. i think that's a possible way, and he may also lean on some of the testimony we've heard. i think there's four witnesses now who have said that biden -- vice president biden, at a minimum, had at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. he may lean back on some of the other testimony we've heard and if he does that, will that be enough to appease the white house or -- >> i can see why there are a lot of nervous republicans. if they're saying it's all coming down to one guy and it's that guy, who seems so inept.

you know, you and i have been around the world of politics, and you have as well, jen. it is populated with people like this who are successful in another realm, spend a lot of money in politics to try and get themselves a job, a title, and they tend to be people who like to boast about their connections. >> mm-hmm. >> and, you know, are a little loose. and that's apparently what we have here. and he's the guy. that's really unsettling. >> that's the thing. does he frame himself as somebody who is boastful and has a big personality and was bragging about talking to the president and never really was talking to the president in the way that he said? you saw some of that come up today. i think volker described as somebody who had a big personality, hinting at the fact that you weren't always necessarily sure -- >> but morrison said he bragged about talking to the president, and then morrison actually checked to see the president's call logs. >> you're saying to admit that tomorrow would be falling on the sword a little bit and say i got out over my skis because that's

just who i am and i'm experienced perhaps. >> maybe he does that. we'll see. we don't know how he wants to end the day. he doesn't have a future in republican party politics. he's not a loyalist to trump at all. he's a rich guy, right? he basically bought himself this position. so we'll see, but i think also he's just unreliable, you know, on the one hand he testifies, this deposition says one thing, then his memory is recollected or refreshed. >> wherever he lands, whichever side doesn't like his answers are going to go to town on his credibility. >> michael, what do you -- >> but only one side can refer him to the justice department for perjury. >> he's not getting referred to the justice department for perjury under any circumstance. >> you don't think he'll be -- >> no. >> if he shows up and lies, the congress wouldn't refer him? >> two things have to happen. number one, the justice department has to decide to actually prosecute him. number two, if he gives good testimony for the democrats, they don't have an incentive to refer him. the interesting thing, everybody thus far who has testified has a sort of reputational aspect of,

you know, how is their name going to make it through this. he's the first person with real legal questions and sort of a real legal cloud hanging over his head, and he has different interests -- >> he's got a connection, though -- >> he's also got money. >> he's got a connection to two important people in this drama. one is the president of the united states. the other is rudy giuliani. >> giuliani has been described as a grenade. we'll see whether or not sondland, who is a little bit wild, gets that way too. but sondland and giuliani together are in this drama because the president placed them in it. and we shouldn't forget that. that's the other thing. how does he even answer questions about why he is in the middle of this drama because this is not in his portfolio. >> i also think when it comes down to it, there's this call we know about. there may be others. but how is he going to answer the question of the call that has been testified about. >> right. >> you know, are you going to do the investigations? yes. is zelensky going to do the investigations? yes, he's going to do the investigations. >> he could just say the

investigations, meaning anti-corruption. >> the harder one is he hung up and they asked about ukraine, and he said he doesn't care about ukraine. he just cares about the bidens. >> he just can't say that thing you heard before was totally wrong. he can't say it. >> i don't know what his legal future is, but, look, there's only one option. you just have to show up and tell the truth. if he's not thinking about what happened to like roger stone last week, you can get in trouble for not tellin the truth. by the way, it's the right thing to do. tell the truth, gordon. that's my advice. >> it will set you free, maybe. thank you. >> or not. >> or not. >> just ahead, i'm going to speak with a former american ambassador to russia what happens when u.s. diplomats are denigrated for doing their job. and we'll talk to the young woman who had the cold who you saw behind ambassador volker sneezing all day. we'll get an update on her health. she joins us ahead. 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.

as a long day of congressional testimony ends, it is helpful to take a step back, gauge the impact of what we've witnessed, especially the attacks aimed at longtime ambassadors. williams burn, a former u.s. ambassador to both russia and jordan, now president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. when you hear the attacks that are being made by the president

and supporters, not just of lieutenant colonel vindman but generally about anybody who testifies, who comes forward, how much does that concern you not only about this particular case but also just moving forward? >> well, it concerns me a lot. i mean in this particular case, i think, you know, a lot of those criticisms, allegations of disloyalty are deeply offensive and just plain wrong. but what concerns me is the longer-term threat we're seeing unfold right now, which isn't about some imaginary deep state that's trying to undermine an elected president. it's really about a weak state. it's what happens when you hollow out institutions where battered and belittled public servants have an increasingly difficult time upholding the guardrails of democracy at home and helping the united states to compete in a really complicated landscape abroad. >> i want to read something you wrote in the atlantic. you said the onlygation of diplomats like all public servants is not just to implement directives robotically. it's also to be honest about their views and concerns, provide their best judgment, and blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

that's -- i mean it is an incredibly complex role, but that's their obligation. >> it is. >> to blow the whistle on wrongdoing? >> it is, and it's their obligation to be honest about their concerns within the discipline of the system. david holmes, for example, who is a wonderful foreign service officer, is going to testify later this week in the obama administration, wrote a dissent channel message, which is the formal channel for expressing concern privately within the system, in this case about policy in afghanistan and pakistan. so, you know -- >> he was actually awarded for that, i understand. >> he was, yeah. and so, you know, it's a part of the system to be honest about your concerns. that's what it means to be a disciplined, honorable public servant. but you do that within the discipline of the system. if you can't, you know, implement policies with which you have a fundamental problem, you know, you can choose to resign, which is also an honorable thing to do. >> but also just why would anybody today, looking at what is going on -- i mean obviously

people who are interested in the foreign service would, you know, still might be interested, but there's a lot of people probably who would say, if i actually want to make this a career, there's not a lot of longevity here, and either, you know, you're not going to get the job. there's not going to be these jobs. >> right. >> or they're going to be meaningless because the presidents are going to have their own second track of diplomacy. >> yeah. i mean it's a tough moment, and it's no coincidence that in 2019, there were fewer applications to join the foreign service than anytime in more than two decades. that's a really sad statistic. i mean i continue to encourage young people and not so young people to join the foreign service because i think public service is an credibly honorable profession right now, but it's a tougher argument to make today. >> you served under republican administrations, democratic administrations. i imagine you served under presidents who you didn't agree with. >> mm-hmm. >> or policies that you didn't agree with. can you execute policies or promote policies that you don't agree with? >> it's hard, but you have an

obligation to be honest about your concerns. i mean i ran the middle east bureau for colin powell in the george w. bush administration in the run-up to the war in iraq. like many of my colleagues in the state department, we had deep misgivings about what we were embarked upon and the rush to war. so we made clear our concerns as honestly as we could within the system, but then once decisions were made, we did our best despite our misgivings to implement those decisions. >> ambassador burns, i appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> if you were watching the hearings closely today like i and everyone here was, you may have noticed a young woman who in the background seemed to be sneezing constantly, and i felt for her all day long because she had to work, and yet she was clearly very sick. one of the -- she's really become one of the unsung stars of the hearing. she went viral, literally. we're going to talk to her ahead. we'll be right back. achoo.

stand up straight. and speak with purpose. yeah? go on, give it a practice run. kelsey. kelsey. marriage? oh. okay. look maybe you should just show her this beautiful helzberg diamond ring? that's a better idea. yeah, maybe not in the bathroom. oooh! oh my word! geico. it's easy to switch and save. how did you know? mom...that was taken at the farm. it was in this small little village. in connemara? right! connemara it is. honestly, we went there- oh, oh look at that! look at that.

they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that.

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.

too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

one of the unsung stars of the hearing today went viral, literally. her name is olivia beavers. she has a cold and from the looks of it, it's a bad one. tonight millions know it. i watched all day long worrying about her. she was behind the folks testifying. you can see her blowing her nose. someone tweeted anyone know who was hired to play the role of typho typhoid mary. so kind. another tweeted can someone check on that woman behind volker and make sure she's okay. another one, send that poor woman behind ambassador volker home. she needs chicken soup and a nice warm bed. olivia is near a warm bed. thank you so much for being with us. i'm so glad we're able to talk to you.

all day long i was worried about you. first of all, how are you feeling? >> thanks anderson. i am feeling a little bit better. i am still carrying tissues in my hand prepared especially for right now. the cold kind of hit me at the worst possible time, and it got picked up as you showed on social media and i was getting texts from my mom. >> i was going to say did your mom call you and be like honey, do you have to be at work today? that was my thought, do you really have to be there. you're a reporter. it's kind of a big story. >> it's a big story and i've been covering this for so long, and so i've been in each of the hearings and i did not want to give up on the opportunity to be there today. and i was there in the morning and i was fine. but then, you know, then it really started to hit me. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but right now we're playing video. that was fascinating to me because there was a whole

section where you just held the tissue on your face almost like people who don't want to breathe other peoples' air. i thought at that point like is your nose just running constantly and you just need to hold it there? this is what i was obsessed with during the testimony. >> yes. i mean, yes, to answer your question. honestly i thought it would be way worse if there was a video of something coming from my nose. >> sure. >> rather than holding the tissue up. but, yeah, you know, i was trying to do -- trying to make myself the least noticeable and then holding the tissue made me even more noticeable. >> were you aware that you were on the prime location right behind volker so you were in every shot? >> well, so, what the past witnesses there's been a wall of people who have accompanied them so you couldn't really see me. but with this last one, they all left and then it was a clear shot. and so right away i was getting a you're holding your tissue to

your nose, are you sick. i got about six text messages from people like oh, are you sick? yes, i mean, how do you know? >> there were a couple of times when you turn and look at the camera with the tissue in your nose. oh, my lord. >> i could see you sneezing. >> i know. i flew in today and there was a woman coughing behind me and i was like it's annoying, why did she get on the plane. were people sitting around you like oh, can't you go somewhere else? do you have to be here? >> yes, there was a reporter i know well from the "washington post" who tried to convince me to wrap a scarf around my mouth so i wouldn't get her sick. and then mike from the "washington post" ended up putting it around his neck when he didn't realize. >> i've got to run because we're out of time. but i hope you feel better. are you going to be there tomorrow? >> thank you. i'll be there tomorrow. >> all right. i'll be there tomorrow. >> less tissues in my hand.

>> thank you for joining us. cnn's coverage continues. 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.

i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ but since they bought their new house... which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of town. it's like eating dinner with your parents.

sandra, are you in school? yes, i'm in art school. oh, wow. so have you thought about how you're gonna make money? at least we're learning some new things. we bundled our home and auto with progressive, saved a bunch. oh, we got a wobbler. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. that's what the extra menu's for. when you bundle with us. we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science. 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.

i'm chris cuomo. welcome to prime time. we're live from washington, d.c. i have to say this has been the biggest day yet. in the bulk of testimony that calls the president's defense and his defender into question came from a witness republicans wanted to testify. we also can't lose sight of the big testimony that happened this morning also. it's good to have analysts and experts and we do. i also have two big players tonight. a democrat who had one of the biggest moments of the day and we're going to bring in a republican player in the house to test their side of it. let's get after it. all right. four first-hand witnesses, means they saw, they