a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! two witnesses today provided a powerful ending to this chapter of house impeachment proceedings.

their first-hand accounts packed an emotional and factual punch adding to two weeks of public testimony indicates was an effort by the president to squeeze personal political favors out of a country at war and in dire need of american assistance. the question tonight given all the testimony and what all the facts before the house intelligence committee appear to establish, what happens next? how politically risky is it for democrats to move forward, and what does it say given all the evidence not one republican has so far moved? we'll talk about all that in the hour ahead. but first some of the key moments from today and the last two weeks. >> the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump. >> reporter: on the first day of open hearings the top u.s. diplomat of ukraine bill taylor told committee members of the discovery of the trump administration's unofficial policy in ukraine and the people who were running it.

>> i encountered an irregular informal channel of u.s. policymaking with respect to ukraine. unaccountable to congress, a channel that included then special envoy kurt volker, u.s. ambassador to the european union gordon sondland, secretary of energy rick perry, white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, and as i subsequently learned mr. giuliani. the odd push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations of burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the united states was undercut by the irregular efforts led by mr. giuliani. >> reporter: he testified alongside deputy assistant secretary of state george kent who also found rudy giuliani's actions in ukraine deeply troubling. >> what interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> i agree with mr. kent.

>> two days later former ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch sat down for questioning. trump has publicly criticized yovanovitch who's a career diplomat who has served for more than 30 years. as she spoke he kept up his attack tweeting about her during the hearing. >> ambassador yovanovitch, as we sit here testifying, the president is attacking you on twitter. >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be ind intimidating. >> democrats pounced saying his tweet aamounted to witness tampering yovanovitch testifying she felt threatened by what trump had said about her. >> what was your reaction when you heard the president of the united states refer to you as bad news? >> i couldn't believe it. again, shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the united states would talk about any ambassador like that.

>> reporter: taylor, kent, yovanovitch set the tone for the inquiry, stark dramatic warnings from career apolitical officials. >> i will begin by swearing you in. >> reporter: then it was the turn of two people who heard directly from president trump talking about investigations that he wanted during a july 25th phone call with the ukrainian president. lieutenant colonel alexander vindman and jennifer williams an aid to vice president mike pence listened in to that call. >> in that july 25th call between the president of the united states and ukraine, president trump demanded a favor of president zelensky to conduct investigations that both of you acknowledge were for president trump's political interests not the national interest. and in return for his promise of a much desired white house meeting for president zelensky. colonel vindman, is that an accurate summary of the excerpts we just looked at?

>> yes. >> ms. williams? >> yes. >> reporter: vindman was so concerned he went to the nse lawyers. >> it was inappropriate. it was improper for the president to request -- to demand an investigation into a political opponent. >> raise your right hand. >> reporter: later that day former u.s. envoy to ukraine kurt volker testified alongside former senior fse director tim morrison. volker a witness the republicans had been counting on said he is now aware of a request for an investigation into the bidens, though he claims he didn't realize it at the time. >> in hindsight i now understand others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption of the ukrainian company in burisma as equivalent to investigating vice president biden. i saw them as different. >> house democrats inched even closer to the president by next

calling gordon sondland, the u.s. ambassador to the european union. sondland is the only witness so far who spoke directly to president trump about investigations. he previously said it was crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. but he then reversed his testimony, admitting in his opening statement it happened and it was not a secret. >> was there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes. >> reporter: republicans jumped on sondland saying he was merely assuming a quid pro quo. >> did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? >> no. >> reporter: dr. fiona hill was next and expressed her frustration with sondland while she was working as the top russia expert at the white house. >> and i did say to him ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up, and here we are. >> reporter: hill says she didn't realize at the time sondland was carrying out a very different mission than her own.

>> he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in a national security policy and those two things had just diverged. >> reporter: next to hill david holmes from the u.s. embassy in ukraine testified he overheard trump speaking to sondland by phone. >> ambassador sondland replied, yes, he was in ukraine and went onto state president zelensky, quote, loves your ass. i then hurd president trump ask so he's going to do the investigation, ambassador sondland replied he's going to do it adding president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. >> reporter: making him one more witness who heard the president himself asking about investigations. five days of testimony, 12 witnesses, democrats ready to move forward. republicans saying none of this shows evidence of a crime. cnn, washington. >> having set the stage let's talk about the drama. david gergen, let's start with you. two weeks of the hearings.

from the tone of chairman schiff tonight it sounds like he has more or less wrapped up his phase. do you think the democrats made a solid case? >> i think they made a very solid case on the merits. on the question whether in fact there was a series of misdeeds on the part of the white house as cohorts i think it is compeing. i think they may not have judged properly how it's going to play in the country. the early signs are the country is not paying attention. there were top ten surveys what the priorities ought to be, impeachment number ten. i think it's been hard for the public to follow it. you have ten different characters who come on stage. none of them were known to the public before this had all happened. and trying to keep up who's who and, you know, there's no crinology, we're not walking our way through the chronlogically,

and i think it's really hard for people to follow. i think a lot of people are emotionally exhausted. that's not to say the democrats can't recoop. it is to say we're still looking toward settling this at the ballot box november. >> do you think that's the case? >> i think that's right. there are more phases to this and it'll go over to the judiciary committee at some point. the things you're talking about in terms of whether the public understands this, whether or not a clear narrative was set forth, maybe that's something the house judiciary can get to. if there's no more depositions, apparently some transcripts will be released from some of the depositions that happened behind closed doors. listen, i think the case had very compelling moments. the fact impeachment is number ten on this list you talk about, it almost suggests it's not going to properly be a voting

issue for these people. maybe it's under water in battleground states, maybe it's split nationally, but it's not clear who it's going to be a voting issue for. if you're a democrat you like it and you think the president should be impeached. it's unclear where it's going to fall if you're an independent, and it's going to motivate somebody to change their vote either way. >> that's a key thing that independents and actually in the markette poll as well democrats are clearly against impeachment. that's the thing that should be concerning because you're right. we kind of know where democrats are going to end up and republicans are going to end up. but democrats need to be concern about what independents are doing and they do need to be concerned what's happening in battleground states. there's at least one poll in wisconsin showing it's not working to their advantage. >> i think we need to pull away from the politics. although politics is important

and let's not lose sight of right or wrong. i don't see any way any kind of fair-minded neutral observer can possibly doubt donald trump was in fact guilty of trying to extort ukraine into helping him politically and withholding u.s. aid to do that. there is no way to reach any other conclusion based on these hearings, because these witnesses were very clear, very consistent and their evidence corroborated each other and also corroborated the outside piece of evidence we have such as the rough transcript of the phone call between trump and zelensky on july 25. this is the very definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. and it is very frustrating me to hear even republicans like will hurd who i think are somewhat more fair minded than the jim jordans or devin nunes of the world this is improper or not impeachable. if this is not impeachable, what is impeachable? this is most impeachable conduct

i think we've seen from a president of the united states, and we have to hold him account no matter when about the politics are. >> that's been the refrain from most of the democrats since president trump was elected and from a lot of people who don't support the president. they've wanted to impeach him from day one, and i actually think that's worked against the democrats about to change minds here. even if you think everything is true and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there has been a lot of moments during this presidency where the republicans have seen it where the democrats cried wolf. and with an election looming there'll be a lot of republicans like will hurd who say i don't love everything i've heard hear here, but i think the americans should get time to weigh in on this. i think the democrats succeeded in one thing, they scratched inch in their party that has existed since election night, but they did not succeed apparently in convincing one republican in the united states

congress to see it their way. >> do you think the facts are on the democrats' side on this? >> i think they have laid out a case that shows bad judgment for sure. certainly rudy giuliani in this wuss a dumb idea. i've said this on your show many times. but i think along the way they have done things that have been hyper-partisan and caused republicans to question the process itself. so i think they've made some interesting points. but i don't think they ever got to a place with any of these witnesses or any of these hearings where a republican would say you know what, i've heard enough and i'm coming to your side. will hurd's speech today i predict is what you're going to hear, varying degrees of discomfort, but nobody wants to throw a president out of office for the first time in american history over a process that will be totally one-sided in terms of its partisanship at the end of its vote count. >> this is not a legal case. i guess the closest thing in the

court system it's akin to is a grand jury. how do you think the democrats did prosecuting their case in. >> i think they did a good job given the limitations they had. remember the most important witnesses and virtually all of the relevant documents were blocked by the white house and administration from being released. but i think what they need to do now is what max was talking about, and this is part of the grand jury process where a prosecutor would make his or her arguments before they vote. and this is a chance they have to talk to the house before the vote. and that's where they can put it all together in a logical way and chronlogical order so it's not piecemeal and people have to pay attention to all these different witnesses. they have a chance to put it out there in a way people can understand. and i don't know whether it'll move the house republicans or not, but that will be the opportunity to do that, to persuade them and the american public. to that point we're going oo look at the next chapter and to the potential final chapter, a senate trial.

joining us later one of the prospective jurors. we'll be right back. these folks don't have time to go to the post office they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. get a 4-week trial plus- in the last year, aof cybercrime every second. when a criminal has your personal information, they can do all sorts of things in your name. criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your social security number. - [announcer] that's why norton and lifelock are now part of one company, providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection,

device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. and if you have an identity theft problem, we'll work to fix it with our million dollar protection package. - there are new cyber threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isn't a one time job, it's an ongoing need. now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. don't wait. - [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. use promo code get25 to save 25% off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. call now to start your membership or visit lifelock.com/tv

as we look ahead to house judiciary committee hearings we also want to look at what could come after that during a possible trial in the senate. i'm joined by new jersey democratic senator john menendez. looking at the last two weeks of hearings, how do you think it went for your democratic colleagues in the house? >> i think that chairman schiff outlined very clearly a series of witnesses including many republican witnesses, those who are working for the administration. an outline that is troublesome, that seems to appear to have created a real picture of an abuse of power by the president. and one that i think fiona hill, dr. hill today made very clear

what's the consequences to the average american. the consequences that we have a narrative that undermines our democracy, that invites a foreign government to get involved in our elections, and that creates a national security threat because some of our colleagues and the president continue to put out a false narrative about ukraine when it's really russia that we should be concerned about and russia that is still seeking to interfere as we approach next year's presidential elections. >> do you think house democrats need to get some republican support before this goes to a full house vote? >> well, you know, all i can say is listening to the information that has been brought forth at these hearings where the narrative is pretty well-established including with ambassador sondland and today ambassador hill and the political attache, the u.s.

political attache at the ukrainian embassy that overheard the conversation between ambassador sondland and the president, it's pretty clear there's a direct line where the president abused his power, invited a foreign government to get involved in our elections and undermines the national security of the united states. if that is not of concern to our republican colleagues, i don't know what will. and if you take the oath of office to up hold the constitution seriously then i think that some of them have a real cause to think about what vote their going to cast in this regard. because it's beyond a partisan issue. this is about the nation's d democracy. it's about the nation's security. and at the end of the day that oath of office is to the constitution, not to the president of the united states. >> there's reporting tonight that the republican senators in talks with the white house about possibility of limiting the impeachment trial in the senate to two weeks.

is that something you would support? is two weeks enough time in your opinion? >> i'm not for the limitation of time. my only limitation of time is whatever it takes to present a full case to the senate for its consideration about guilt or innocence, and, you know, to my colleagues who are running for president, you know, i'm sure they would take equally as serious their oath of office, and that means being in the senate for whatever period of time is necessary to make a full and complete case of all of the facts and that an opportunity for a determination by the senate. so i'm not for artificial time lines here at all. this is too serious. there's a reason that the founders created the ability of impeachment in the constitution of the united states. it did not want the president

ultimately to act as a king. they wanted that person to act as a president. if we allow the president of the united states to abuse his office with impunity and he gets away with it, then ultimately what we are inviting is not the democracy with checks and balances, we are inviting a tyranny. and that is something i think is far too serious at the end of the day for the concerns of who's running for president or republicans wanting to limit the time so they have less exposure. >> the majority leader mitch mcconnell has told reporters earlier this he can't imagine a scenario in which the president would be removed from office. i mean, everybody can't be expected to be completely impartial. this is a political process. >> well, it's true. but, you know, when you take the oath of office you say i seek to

up hold the constitution of the united states, not when it's politically convenient, but to uphold the constitution. and so to prejudge the decision at the end of the day is in my mind a political decision not an up holding of the oath. so as far as i'm concerned, i don't know how one can make that determination. if you already have a decision before you've heard all the facts, and while, you know, i haven't sat through every moment of the impeachment hearings because i have a job to do, but when all of those facts are presented to the senate, that's when a verdict should be rendered not before. and so i think that that's a political decision by the majority leader if that's what he's saying is going to happen before it happens. and so i would say to my senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle what the nation needs right now is patriots, not partisans. >> appreciate your time. thank you very much.

>> thank you. up next, what our political legal team make of a possible senate trial and that a late report on white house actions as we continue to the end of this long historic week. there's a company that's talked to even more real people than me: jd power. 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. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™. (danny)'s voice) of course you don'te because you didn't!? need stocking stuffers?

your job isn't doing hard work... ...it's making them do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. quickbooks. backing you.

it is remarkable when you stop and think about it's only been a little more than ten weeks since the whistle-blower report became known and this story erupted. by congressional standards that's barely a heartbeat though we should point out andrew johnson was impeached in a matter of days. still proceedings are going quickly by modern standards.

we spoke with governor menendez a moment ago. do you think it would behoove democrats, david, to sort of get this moving along quickly, to get a trial in the senate to be in the neighborhood of two weeks? >> i don't think they ought to rush it. obviously you'd like to conclude it before iowa and new hampshire and that sort of thing, but i don't think they've quite found their groove yet. they need time to figure that out. they need a message. i think that they have to -- from my point of view adam schiff has done a very fine job pulling us together. i do think it would be helpful for him to have a partner, perhaps a woman with moral authority. but somebody -- we need a couple of voices on the democratic side who can appeal to various parts of the american psyche. you know, i think max was absolutely right about the seriousness of this and how we have a moral responsibility. and the ultimate jurors are going to be the public, and i

think the democrats haven't quite figured out yet how to bring that message to them. >> obviously the public is the ultimate jury. i think most of the republicans, however, are a hopeless cause. you're not going to convince these republicans because it's not for a lack of evidence. it's not because they're fairly weighing the evidence or saying if there's a somewhat different procedure. devin nunes was complaining the impeachment hearings should be in the judicil committee not the intelligence committee. or they're making these lame conspiracy theories which fiona hill slapped down today. these are not serious arguments. at the end of the day they're standing behind trump because he has the support of about 85% of republicans. and as long as that is the case they're going to turn a deaf ear to all the overwhelming evidence they're hearing. i think the only thing that will move some republicans at the

margins is if you see declining support for president trump based on the seriousness of the case, and that goes to david's point about the need to make the case to the country, and that process is still ongoing. >> i think that's right. i think america is a partisan is very divided place, and i'm not bringing on a woman, i'm not sure explaining it or keeping it short, making it longer, i'm not sure if that makes a difference. like i think a lot of this stuff is baked ib, people are in their corners. i do think the democrats moved part of the public along. it's sort of 50-50 in terms of where people are, and that was before they even put on a trial. and it seemed it essentially stayed that way. but i don't know if individual voters are thinking about who they vote for based on whether or not they voted for impeachment, and that's the point i was trying to make before. we just don't know if it's an actual voting issue, and i think democrats clearly know, you

know, that republicans for these last two years have stood behind this president in every single way, and i don't know that they went in here thinking they were going to move a block of republicans in the house or senate. they want to say that an american president can't do this. >> but if they lose the case and also lose the country, lose the argument, that's going to imperil them for november. >> i don't know that we know that. >> i think if they have a trial in the senate and only democrats vote to convict trump, and he goes out and spends the next several months saying, look, for the second time they came after me and i was totally exonerated, now the democrats will howl when he does that but that's obviously what he's going to say. to your point, david, about finding somebody to help sell the message to the american people, i can't think of a worse person to put to the face of this than adam schiff. putting adam schiff in charge of it, i can't think of a worse idea. so for whatever job you think he did in had committee which i'm

not disputing his job as committee chairman wasn't well executed. but his performance during the mueller inquiry, he drained any improperly or possibility he ever had of convincing a single republican of anything. i think you're right. if schiff is the face of your campaign to convince the public of something, you failed before you started. >> there's no person that could have been. the thing is you had republicans saying there was no quid pro quo. well, there was. then it was like the ukrainians didn't know about it, but they did. and he's so concerned about corruption, and yet it turns out he never mentions corruption and he pulls back the ambassador who's known for fighting corruption -- >> and didn't care if the investigation -- >> and it goes into this whole thing yesterday about -- it's because he doesn't like foreign aid. at the same time why would he ever pull back foreign aid and

literally every single argument republicans have made has been shot down, and it just shows they don't care about what's true, they just don't. it doesn't matter if it's adam schiff. it doesn't matter who's saying it. every single argument you guys have made has been knocked down. >> first of all, i haven't mead these arguments. >> my arguments have been, a, they should have admitted this from the beginning. b, they should have thrown rudy under the bus. c, it was always probable the democrats were going to show -- approaching something they were going to be able to sell as a quid pro quo. i don't think it was smart to switch to bribery. i'm not sure they pursued the correct arguments to your point. but i always thought it was highly unlikely that putting adam schiff in charge of any process in which you want to have any hope of convincing any republican to do anything was destined to fail, and of course here we are. >> i said this last night, you can't throw rudy under the bus because donald trump was the one

leading the whole thing. >> we're going to take a quick break. to kirsten's points about the fact president trump's reaction to today's testimony and his efforts to shape a possible trial in the senate ahead. you don't let a cold ruin your day. you take dayquil severe liquicaps and crush it. dayquil severe. the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy-head, fever, sore throat, power through your day, medicine. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™.

the medicare enrollment deadline is only days away. need stocking stuffers? with so many changes, do you know if your plan is still the right fit? having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket, and that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. with their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from national insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. call or visit healthmarkets to find your fitscore today. in minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit or if there's another one that can get you extra coverage or help save you money. best of all, their service is completely free. does your plan have $0 copays, $0 deductibles, and $0 premiums? if not, maybe it's not the right fit. does it include dental and vision coverage? well, if not, maybe it's not the right fit.

how about hearing aid, glasses and gym memberships at no additional cost? maybe there is a better fit for you. call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets.com for your free fitscore. we can instantly compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more, including plans that may let you keep your doctor and save money. with the annual medicare enrollment deadline coming, don't waste another minute not knowing if you have the right medicare fit. for this free service go to healthmarkets.com or call right now. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a+ customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. don't assume that your plan is still the right fit. the healthmarkets fitscore makes it easy to find the right medicare plan for you. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company, they work to help you and they do it all for free. your insurance marketplace. healthmarkets. there may be medicare benefits and savings you're missing out on. only healthmarkets has the free fitscore.

call before the deadline.

a white house official tells cnn tonight they believe today's two witnesses were not damaging except a white house spokesman in an interview tonight says

while president trump feels there's no basis for impeachment quote he wants a trial in a senate, he wants to bring up more witnesses. for more of the action there boris sanchez joins us. with it hearings wrapped up for now at least talk to me about the president and the white house, how they're feeling tonight, what people are saying there? >> anderson, as of right now the president feels pretty comfortable with where things stand. white house officials don't believe he's really in any danger of being convicted and removed from office. as you said white house officials today told cnn that they didn't really feel that fiona hill or david holmes provided really damaging testimony to the president. one official saying that something was missing, a smoking gun was missing from their testimony. notably these same officials said they were made uncomfortable by the testimony of gordon sondland yesterday, but they initially felt he was very strong in proclaiming there was a quid pro quo with ukraine, but they got more confident and

felt more confident once republicans started questioning him and started making the case his argument was based on assumptions and suppositions what the president actually wanted. we should point out one white house official did admit if there were testimony from other officials, say former national security advisor john bolton or the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, that that could potentially change the equation. but seeing as how that's highly unlikely they would testify, they're pretty confident with where things stand, anderson. >> we should point out, the state department, the white house had refused to turn over any documents and making it as difficult as possible. the president weighed in this morning trying to cast doubt on holmes testimony on twitter. what did he say? >> this goes back to that account from holmes he was at this cafe with gordon sondland and he overheard what president trump told sondland on the phone. it the president dismissing that account saying he's been watching people make phone calls

his entire life. he says my hearing is and has been great and even says he tried to do this himself. i even tried to hear a conversation someone else was having on the phone to no avail. he suggested people should try it live. the president not addressing the substance of what holmes testified to. he said that sondland told him about the president's priorities in ukraine. it is hard to imagine the president in the oval office trying this out himself. >> jennifer, where do you see this -- i mean the process moving forward i think it's still sort of confusing for a lot of us. i mean, there's the judiciary committee and then in the senate, what does it look like on the judiciary committee? >> we don't know except they'll be taking this up.

that's where they really have an opportunity to put this case together in a way that is understandable, digestile, makes sense to people and hits all the highlights of all this testimony at one place in one time in a couple of hours and that will be the most compelling case they can make. >> it's interesting because time and time again i feel like certainly in the mueller investigation but also in this you had democrats coming forward and saying you know what as soon as lieutenant colonel vindman shows up in that uniform and he's talking that's going to, you know, do this. and when you have sondland and now it's -- the democrats are finally able to make their case in the judiciary committee then it's going to -- the pieces are going to be tied together. it doesn't seem to work out that way. >> and i actually don't think the democrats did that this time. like the actual folks putting on the case, maybe folks in the media did that. i do think they did that before with mueller. mueller's going to come, he's going to bring this thing to

life. you had all sorts of democrats on-air saying that. i don't think democrats put on this case thinking they were going to bring republicansen along. i think adam schiff laid out the case, clearly people tuned in. our ratings have been great. folks have been talking about it. you get into the an uber and you've got cnn on listening to it. so i do think they informed the public and laid out their case. and i don't think they really tried to lay out this idea that they were going to bring any number of republicans along. >> you said they informed the public, so that's the purpose of oversight hearings? that's the purpose of, you know, most hearings that go in on congress. the purpose of this hearing is to remove the president from office. so i wonder if your theory is correct why pursue impeachment instead of oversight hearings that could have allowed them to make the same case. her theory is all they needed to do was inform the public --

>> no, i think the point of this is to say the president has to be held accountable if he does something like this. that is what adam schiff said. adam schiff said if the minimal is that they impeach him in the house that at least is holding him accountable for something in showing the next president you will have a consequence -- >> i would be careful what you wish for if i were the democrats on that front because they may have a trial in the senate, they may call witnesses and he may not get a single republican vote to convict. >> the democrats at the end of the day realize they're running a political risk but they have no choice. they cannot allow trump to wait until the election when he is trying to fix the outcome of the election. what he is doing threatens the integritiy of the 2020 vote. and imagine what he'll do if he escapes these charges. this is going to be a field day for further foreign interference. the other point i would make is i think it's way too soon to say these hearings are not bringing

the american public along. keep in mind the polls are showing that roughly 50% of the public already supports impeachment and removal. at the height of the bill clinton impeachment, that number never went above 36%. this is the highest number of americans who support the impeachment and rule of a president since the summer of 1974. so democrats i think are actually doing a pretty good job of making the case to the public even if they're never going to bring along fox news viewers or brainwash trump. >> there's one poll and people don't talk about it very much because of the unreliability, but it showed a 10 point drop in the number of people who think he should be removed from office. we'll have to wait and see what happens from here. >> unreliable poll, though. >> it is unreliable, but it's the first evidence we've seen. let's see what happens from here. but, listen, this was not about

winning republicans. it's about bringing along independents so you have enough of a coligds that you can actually come close to winning this fight but winning in november. it's a darelication of duty to say we have no responsibility to go after these people. >> perhaps the one bright note in this otherwise dark chapter, that's ahead. you wouldn't do only half of your daily routine so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to

they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

the three immigrants we saw

testify before publicly the past two weeks dr. fiona hill, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman and marie yovanovitch came from either an poppressive regime, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. these three found success in service to their new country. now they face accusations of disloyalty because they chose honor and country over all else. here's today's witness, dr. hill, on questions of her loyalty and those of the others. >> i do not believe that my loyalty is to the united kingdom. my loyalty is here to the united states. this is my country and the country that i serve, and i know for a fact that every single one of my colleagues and there are many naturalized citizens who felt exactly the same way. i think it's deeply unfair. >> lieutenant colonel vindman no doubt knows how unfair that is.

he's faced innuendo he has quote an affinity for his home country ukraine. one floated the word espionage, and yet this is the message he had for his dad who brought the family to the united states. >> dad, i'm siing hetting here in the u.s. capitol talking to our elected professionals. talking to our elected professionals is proof you made the right decision to leave the soviet union, 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. >> their faith ultimately is in american principles of right and wrong. marie yovanovitch was the first to testify. she was called bad news by the president and was the target of lies and conspiracy theories by his attorney rudy giuliani. that and that alone coccia von v vch her job after decades of

service. if there's any good news in all of this is that these people, these americans stood up and didn't cower. it is their model that best fits the final lines of that ema lazar lazarus poem that adorns the statue of liberty. the news continues after this break.

she's so beautiful. janie, come here. check this out. let me see.

she looks... kind of like me. yeah. that's because it's your grandma when she was your age. oh wow. that's...that's amazing. oh and she was on the debate team. yeah, that's probably why you're the debate queen. - mmhmm. - i'll take that. look at that smile. i have the same dimples as her. yeah. the same placements and everything. unbelievable. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™. hey. need stoc ♪hey.tuffers?

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.

i did say to him, ambassador sondland, i think this is all going to blow up, and here we are. >> the last scheduled impeachment witness has spoken, leaving house democrats with some decisions to make. he wants a trial in the senate. >> the trump white house defiant in the face of possible impeachment. china's president xi talking tough. new comments about his trade war with president trump. mayday, mayday, mayday -- >> a scare in the sky as passengers see f