fields, farms, most gorgeous things you've ever seen and have you these ugly things going up. >> reporter: maybe the president has just had wit wind. jeanie moos, cnn, rrrr, new york. >> thank you so much. joining us, ac 360 starts now. 'tis the night before the night before and there is still plenty stirring. the president's personal lawyer for one. rudy guiliani's latest revelations have people talking especially his comments about a prominent jewish american, a holocaust survivor and there is also the house minority leader kevin mccarthy and what he is saying. debunked spying on the president's campaign. speaking of the president. he is talking, too. and hills words are really hitting the fan. >> i never understood wind. you know i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. it's very expensive. you know what they don't tell

youant windmills? after ten years, they start to get tired, old, you got to replace them. >> yes, windmills are also a thing tonight and there's more. i'm erica hill in for anderson. thanks, for joining us. we begin with newly released e-mails and a fight over whether to have witnesses at the impeachment trial. the two coming together tonight with the word of a white house budget official named michael duffy. someone senate democrats want to hear from. >> if there was ever an argument that we need mr. duffy to come testify. this is that information. this e-mail is explosive. >> this e-mail the one in question was obtained by court order. in it mr. duffy from the white house budget office ordered the pentagon to freeze military aid i'd to -- to kiev. it was sent 90 minutes after the controversial july 25th phone

call with ukraine's president. the calm, of course, that is at the heart of the entire impeachment question. did youy writes, quo -- dufy writes, based open guidance i have received and in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to ukraine, please hold off on any additional dod funds. the question is who ordered it held up. it is not the only line to stand out. quoting again here, given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. why would it need to be closely held? mr. duffy is one of four witnesses senate democrats want to hear from. cnn jim acosta joins us on more of the larger impeachment. the president in mar-a-lago weighing in on impeachment what has he been saying? >> reporter: he has been posting tweets, the house speaker is delaying things because she doesn't have a good case. pelosi will say that's because

we want a fair process. the president has been retweeting lindsey graham, one of his top allies in the senate tweeting this evening if democrats don't send over those articles of impeachment, programs they should take matters into their own hands. it's not exactly clear what lindsey graham is talking about. i can tell you they are giving heartburn to the president's legal team inside the white house. they know the longer this process drags out, the more surprises you could have like those e-mails you were talking about. >> in terms of those e-mails, what is the white house response? beyond concerns of heartburn, of course? >> reporter: yeah, right. what they're saying at this point is there was an omb official over the weekend who put out a statement saying it is not fair to tie these e-mails to the president's phone call, because they had an inner agency phone call one week before the president had that phone call with the leader of ukraine, basically, explaining that a hold was going to be put on this ukraine military money. but there is no mistaking, just how amazing the coincidence

would be that 90 minutes after the president has this phone call with the leader of ukraine that michael duffy, a top official at omb is sending a directive to the department of defense saying we are freezing this money now. you have to suspend some disbelief to think the two things aren't connected at this point. mark short, the vice president's chief of staff was saying over the weekend, listen, the money was released to the ukrainian, so ultimately, they got the aid. >> that seems to be the go-to defense they keep going back to it. >> it is over and over, the timing is interesting in terms of that e-mail. robert blair, meantime, one of the four witnesses democrats want to call to testify is actually getting a new position. what more you can tell us about that? >> reporter: this was announced this week during the holiday week. it's interesting when you see that timing. the white house is saying robert blair, who is a senior adviser to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney will be taking on a new role at the administration, overseeing tell me communications strategy and looking at this turn to 5g

technology. i will tell you, it is interesting because, you know, if you contrast what is happening with robert blair, with some other administration officials, who did testify, he is certainly getting, you know, the gold star treatment during this holiday season and what is most interesting about robert blair, of course, what is most interesting is he is one of four witnesses that chuck schumer would like to see testify. at this point it does raise the question is the administration, you know, perhaps handing over a little goody to robert blaire to entice him to remain quiet? the white house and administration would say no to that but when you look at these things and how they play out, obviously the administration officials who go up to capitol hill, they don't exactly receive the same type of treatment that robert blaire is receiving before christmas. >> jim acosta, appreciate. >> joining us, dana bash, elliott williams and david

gergen. dana, do you have any sense that this impeachment standoff, nobody is holding their breath that anything is going to happen. with that being said, is there a chance it will work itself out? >> yes, there is a chance it will work itself out. how it will work itself out, that's to be determined. the reason is because it's in the democrat's interests to try to find a way to start this trial for many, many reasons. because if you listen to mitch mcconnell, his argument is why are they holding it because if they think that by holding it it's going to make me negotiate and give something away that i don't want to give away or maybe agree to, witnesses that i don't want to agree to, that's not going to happen because no skin off my back. if we don't start a senate

trial, we'll move on to other thing. confirm more trump judicial nominees. having said that, that is his argument and there's a lot to be said for that. there are also republicans who are running and if he's not re-elect re-elected, there are pressure points on both sides to get something accomplished. >> for democrats, fair trial equates to more witnesses, it equates to evidence. you've heard democrats say the trial is not a fact finding operation. they are going to render judgment on a case that was passed on to them from the house. what do you make of that? >> well, i think we've gotten into such a mess it's hard to get this all untangled, isn't it? i agree with dana, we're likely to get a settlement.

and for the democrats, i think with these documents, two things become apparent. one is here's a single memo that has been held back and came through a different channel, it became public. it's a story. it's a piece of the puzzle we didn't have. what the document and story is all about is what's missing from the case. the things that the democrats couldn't get because of the stone wall. the documents they couldn't get. the witnesses they couldn't get. i think it strengthens their case that this is not entirely on the up and up in terms of how the republicans are playing hard ball. i think that's pretty important. the second thing is the facts are important. to have a trial that doesn't turn all the facts is bizarre. >> there are a number of them that agree.

most of them democrats. elliott, you were counsel to the senate judiciary under schumer. he came out later today and said that he could and would push for a vote. how much leverage does he actually have right now? >> yeah. so the minority actually has a tremendous amount of leverage in the senate. this gets back to dana's point. what this all comes down to is how much pain can senator schumer and the democrats cause for those four or five or six senate republicans in tough races. this gets into powell's interests as well. his goal is to protect the senate, not to protect the president of the united states. what senator schumer can dole do is force difficult votes. these are senators out for

re-election in blueish or purple states and force them to take a vote on this michael duffy question. it's quite damning. make them go on the record and say they don't want this individual to testify. senator schumer can push it. dana, when you spoke with dick durbin on "state of the union," he made it clear nobody should say how they want to vote. that ship has sailed. aside from a small handful of senators, there he is a pretty good sense of where everyone stands. >> there is. that's why what elliott was talking about is so key. yeah, with senator durbin who, by the way, was there 21 years ago and a voting senator and back then this is when i started covering the hill, there were many, many more senators. the vast majority of the senators said we're impartial

jurors. we're not going there. it has changed dramatically which is the point he has made. when it comes to the trial, once they are in the trial assuming senator schumer doesn't get what he wants, which is an agreement to have the witnesses before they start, it's hard to imagine that hatching. let's just assume that is the case. you are going to see really, really important votes if the democrats are able to put up a vote for bringing michael duffy to testify. that is a 51 vote threshold. it's hard to see republicans on the bubble for any tough races saying, no, we don't want to hear from someone who can shed some light. it is possible but it is a tough vote as opposed to the final vote which is whether or not to throw the president out of office or acquit him. that's an easier argument for them to make back home which is i don't think what he did is right but i don't have enough facts. there's nothing i can do.

it's up to the voters to decide in november. >> david, go ahead. do you want to say something? >> yeah, i want to say a couple of things. i think a lot is going to depend on what the various senators hear back home. this next two weeks is going to be pivotal. coming out of the impeachment process there was a widespread view, especially in the press, that the winds were blowing. there was a new poll out in the last 24 hours that the wind is shifting slightly in their direction. the president's poll numbers are down. people who want to see the president not only impeached but removed is up slightly. that's important as we go forward here because the dynamics are going to be important. i want to make one other point. if the democrats are able to get the handful of senators on the

republican side to vote to bring witnesses like duffy, there is going to be pressure from republicans to bring witnesses like the whistle-blower. that's going to turn it into a circus. >> if you notice one thing you're hearing democrats use is all we need is four votes for a fair trial. i heard brian schatz bring that. four votes gets them 51. that's the senate majority that would allow them to continue. david is right. you start getting into questions of then do republicans start asking for hunter biden and do we end up with the same circus the house of representatives is. >> we will be watching. thank you. dana, stick around. there is rudy giuliani news to talk about. that coming up. a remarkable interview he gave recently. up next, one of the impeachment

jurors, senator chris van holland, the trial he wants to see and how far he thinks his fellow democrats should go to get it. is the president blowing smoke about wind power and does he know more about the subject than anyone? listen and decide for yourself tonight on 360. (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal.

and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. i'climate is the number 1ove priority.sage.

i would declare a state of emergency on day 1. congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever. this is a problem that continues to get worse. i've spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies... stopping pipelines... stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. how are we going to pull this country together? we take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the world and do it together. this is the epson no more buying cartridges.. big ink tanks. lots of ink. print about... this many pages. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

we're talking tonight about the fight over impeachment witnesses and what a trial in the senate will look like. senators will swear to be impartial jurors. mitch mcconnell has already said

this and these are his own words, quote, i'm not partial about this at all. he was asked about it this morning on fox news. >> do you think chuck schumer's impartial? do you think elizabeth warren is impartial? >> no. >> bernie sanders is impartial? let's quit the charade. this is a political exercise. >> for mitch mcconnell, it's a political exercise. shortly before air time i spoke with another senator, chris van holland. i want to ask you first about what we just heard from senator mcconnell. are your fellow democratic senators, are you fully impartial heading into a senate trial? >> erica, yes, i am, because i'm willing to listen to all the evidence before rendering a final verdict in this case. do i think that the house has made an overwhelming case for

impeachment as of this point in time? yes, i do, but i also have heard the president say that he wants to have a big trial and he wants to have witnesses talking about how he's not guilty of the offenses he's been charged with and i'm absolutely willing to listen. at the same time, that's why it's so important that we have witnesses that apparently the president or the president's team and mitch mcconnell don't want to call. everybody should be able to make their case m a true trial that's fair in the senate. >> in terms of having those witnesses, senate leader mcconnell said, quote, we haven't ruled out witnesses. we said, let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton. fair is fair. what are your thoughts on that? are you okay with handling this in the exact same manner that it was held for president clinton? >> well, every trial is different. you know that. i think the american public knows that. and i think it's very reasonable to seek some assurances right up front that there will be

witnesses. there were witnesses in the clinton trial. there were three deposition trial. there were three in the previous trial, andrew johnson. there's no reason why senator mitch mcconnell can't tell us up front that he's going to agree to call these very important fact witnesses from the white house who have direct knowledge of the impeachment charges made against the president. >> some of the witnesses the president has treefrd is former vice president biden and hunter biden. if mitch mccouple acquiesces, if there is a push for the bidens, are they fair game? >> so as you know, the biden issue is a total red herring. it's been well-documented that there is no truth to the allegations and i haven't heard any republican senators talk

about calling hunter biden or joe biden. if senator mcconnell wants to put that in the mix, he hasn't done that. we've named four fact witnesses that are not, you know, some, you know, wild goose chase that has already been disproven. we're talking about witnesses in the white house, including michael duffy who we just learned over the last few days that michael duffy within 90 minutes of president trump's phone call with president zelensky sent that information with the u.s. military assistance to ukraine and at the same time asking them to keep it quiet, hush hush. clearly they understood that this was inappropriate and michael duffy's exactly the witness that we need to hear from along with the documents and the original transcript of the phone call.

rather than the memo. >> in terms of the emails and the foya lawsuit, those were referenced by senator schumer where he called for evidence to be admitted. he also then later today said he could and would push for a vote. do you know of any of your republican colleagues who would get behind that vote and potentially join democrats for certain witnesses and evidence? >> well, i think it's going to be awfully hard for them to explain to their constituents why they're voting against calling fact witnesses and trying to get documents, right? if you were going to have a fair trial, every american understands that means that everybody gets to put on their case. that means you get to call witnesses. in voting against witnesses, it's pretty clear they're afraid

of the truth. that's been the question all along. if the white house and president trump had nothing to hide, why are they so scared about presenting those documents and those witnesses? >> senator chris van holland. appreciate you joining us. thank you. >> good to be with you. thank you. a lot more ahead on the christmas eve eve. the white house needs to hear from former white house don mcgann. female anchor: it's 6:39, time for 'news update' male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need.

the house of representatives believes it still needs to hear from the white house counsel don mcgann saying his information

could be relevant to possibly additional articles of impeachment. in a court filing today house lawyers said the impeachment investigations didn't end with last week's votes. it's the latest turn in a drawn out legal battle over mcgann's possible testimony. evan perez joins us now. lawyers for the judiciary committee are saying a second impeachment could be necessary? >> could you imagine the tweets from the president given his reaction already from the current impeachment debate if he were to be the first president to be impeached a second time? that's certainly what the democrats are raising here in this court filing. nobody really thinks the democrats are going to pursue this, but what they are saying is simply because just because they barely mentioned the mueller investigation and the information from don mcgann pending or will be pending doesn't mean that this is all over. they say they're going to keep investigating this.

what's at stake here, erica, is simply this. absolute immunity. the house and by the way a judge has already said that that's not so. he has and his aides have to respond and he has to respond to a house subpoena. we'll see where the courts are going to land on this in the coming weeks. again, this is a fight, as you've said, is going on for eight weeks. >> give us a better sense in terms of the timing here for a final desbigs whether don mcgann is going to testify. >> well, yes. we expect that there's going to be some arguments in the coming weeks in january but, again, we don't know when the appeals court will make a final ruling. as you point out, it's beyond don mcgann, right. we're talking about other people like john bolton who the president says he is protected by absolute immunity.

so i think there's a big question that the supreme court will get to hear from the witnesses and whether they get to say, forget about congress. >> so much riding on that as we wait and watch. evan perez, thank you. oregon democrat says the house should take its time before transmitting these to the senate saying at minimum there should be agreement on rules of the game and access to witnesses. congressman, good to have you with us tonight. >> thank you. >> sir, give us a sense. the notion here that the house, as i was just talking about with evan based on the filings, could recommend new articles of impeachment. how real a possibility is that? >> we are, as we keep saying, in unchartered waters with this president, his reckless behavior, his denial of the norms that everybody else has adhered to, challenges to the

court. we don't actually know what he's going to do next. the fact is that the house of representatives continues to control the two articles. has not yet submitted them. speaker pelosi is trying to find out what the rules of the game are going to be. this doesn't stop what the house judiciary committee and other committees can do going forward. there's nothing to stop supplementing the record. i think there may well be court decisions that come down. we may see at some point there are tax returns that are made public and overall one of the things that's fascinating about the public opinion, even people who aren't yet convinced that donald trump should be removed through impeachment overwhelmingly support the notion that this should be a fair process. >> in terms of that process, before the actual impeachment

vote you tweeted, quote, rather than allow for a sham trial in the senate we should keep gathering information and let the process ripen. based on that statement, based on what we just heard for you, do you think the house rushed at all to vote on the two articles of impeachment? should they have waited and collected more evidence? >> yeah. i think it was cleared on the two articles. there was overwhelming evidence to support them and candidly if you watch what the republicans did in response, they didn't dispute the facts. they were just playing process. one of their arguments is that there's too much hear say evidence by ironically it's the republican administration that refuses to make the witnesses available who could confirm this. they can't have it both ways. >> you say they can't have it both ways as we're waiting to see what happens obviously in the senate. you have made it clear, as you've said, you support speaker

pelosi waiting to hand over those articles until she sees how things play out in the senate. how long do you think it can go on? >> it's like every day that goes by, there's no information. what we just found out that the coordination with the white house, the telephone call made within 90 minutes of the president's conversation with the ukrainian president telling people to be quiet, it's not supposed to be public, this is, i think, suspicious at t. at the least there is going to be more information that trickles out. frankly, this president is just acting unhinged. look at what he did last week in michigan with a two-hour rant

insulting the memory of a revered public official, john dingle. this is a person who doesn't take any pressure well. i think the speaker plays it right, she has her obligations to the house and to the process and she takes it seriously. frankly, donald trump doesn't match up very well to nancy pelosi. doesn't deal with strong women. there's no stronger woman in america than nancy pelosi. clearly he can't handle her. >> i do want to get one more take. you brought up the emails which were released over the weekend. they were referenced by senator schumer in his push for evidence or witnesses. is it your sense that those emails will have an impact on republicans in the senate? >> you know, i don't know, but i

think there is a sense that they're picking up from people at home that they want this process to be fair and when we have new evidence come out raising questions, i think it argues for being able to get that on the table, to take the time to do it right and to have a process that respects getting the facts out. i think that this is something that republicans would do well to heed because the majority public, as i said, overwhelming majority of the public favors this process being fair. when you have the chairman of the judiciary committee, the leader for he jeer for republic they've made up their mind, they don't care, that is troubling for any independent minded american. >> appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you.

up next, why the house minority leader insists the fbi spied on president trump's election campaign back in 2016 and what the facts are.

a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain. trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to impeach.com need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising.

as we noted at the top of the program tonight, house minority leader kevin mccarthy is repeating the widely debunked

notion that president trump's campaign was spied on. >> we pause for one moment and you read the i.g. report by horowitz, here's the fbi. they broke into president trump at the time, candidate trump's campaign, spied on him and then they covered it up. it is a modern day watergate. they broke into his campaign by bringing people into it. they have been trying to cover it up for the whole time. >> mccarthy then tweeted out that video clip which has generated more than 35,000 retweets and here's what really matters. we have to point this out, what he said isn't true. if, in fact, you did read that report you would know the department of justice inspector general said the exact opposite, that there was no political bias involved in the fbi investigation of the trump campaign and that the fbi did not try to recruit either confidential informants nor did it attempt to send any informant into trump headquarters or trump spaces. let's get the perspective from

two republicans. charlie dent and scott jennings. both are cnn political commentators. scott, as you hear those comments from kevin mccarthy, what do you think? is it possible he actually believes the words that are coming out of his mouth or is he trying to get a message to the president that he is loyal? >> well, i think a lot of republicans after reading the horowitz report and the rebuke that the fisa report, a lot of republicans are concerned about the way the issues regarding the trump campaign investigation were handled. i mean, the investigation by any fair reading of these documents was riddled with errors. all of the things that happened that were uncovered by the horowitz report cut against the trump campaign. it wasn't like it was a system making errors. all cutting against the trump campaign and chris wray, the fbi director is saying i have 40

fixes i have to implement. if something requires 40 fixes, it is not working right. what he's talking about is the general belief by republicans that there was a system in place here and even though there may have been greend to look into some things, there was a system in place that cut against the trump campaign time and time again. that's the message he's trying to send. >> that is totally different from saying that the report it self-found. he's saying if you read the report the fbi spied on the campaign. it says yes, there were errors made and there are problems that need to be addressed but it didn't say those things, scoot. do you think he believes it? >> i think it's semantics. they were clearly looking at the trump campaign. they were clearly looking at people affiliated with the campaign even if they weren't directly on the payroll. you can call it investigating. he's going to call it spying. the fact is the fbi was looking at people and they did it in a

way that the horowitz report and the fisa report says were not appropriate. >> semantics are coming up a lot these days. when you look at all of this, it is things are always going to be spun in a certain way based on where you fall in the political spectrum. that's been true since the dawn of time. it's a little bit different in this day and able. when you listen to what we're hearing from kevin mccarthy and you couple it with this, specifically republicans in congress to the president. i just want to read part of that to get your take on it. they write in this piece, if he does not enjoy the broad admiration, he being the president, he is more feared by his party than any occupant of the oval office since at least lyndon johnson. when you hear comments like that from kevin mccarthy, from others, what do you make of them? >> well, it's pretty clear to me

th that many republican leaders see it to their advantage to be closely embracing it. i think by so fully letting them know there's operating problems. republicans are going to need to have it. it's serious about halting this demographic. so forth that embraces free markets and it's more constructively engaged. they have to get their heads

right. they're ignoring the real political problems that we face. >> scott, do you see that. >> you have two parties, one run by donald trump and one by the democratic conference. they'll have a nominee who has to adhere to a lot of their principles. these two people are heading in vastly different directions. if you're a republican, what you're being asked to do out in the political sphere is to rebuke your party, rebuke your president and give over to a direction, a vision, a leftward version that you don't agree with in any way. does that mean you agree with everything donald trump or anyone is doing? no, of course no human being is going to satisfy any individual 100% of the time but when you

look at the two broad visions, the vision that trump and the others are putting out through their presidential aspirations in the house and senate, there's no choice. that doesn't mean you are 100% in love with everybody in the republican leadership but it certainly means you like that direction and that vision far more than the other side. i don't think you're going to see any republicans peeling away from the president and their candidates because they know the alternative would take the country in a direction they can't support. >> appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. up next, the case of donald j. trump versus the windmill. most powerful signal. b', and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today,

to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile.

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

president trump is continuing his war against wind power, namely wind turbines, although the president calls them windmills. it's not a new thing either. you could add them to the comments about light bulbs, dishwashers, toilets. here's what the president said over the weekend while talking to a conservative student group. >> you have an economy based on wind. i never understood wind. i know windmills. i've studied it better than anybody. it's very expensive. we have a world.

the world is tiny compared to the universe so tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. you talk about the carbon footprint. fumes are spoewing into the air. . >> do you want to see a bird graveyard? go under a windmill someday. >> apparently that's where you find a bird graveyard. it's try that turbines do kill birds. more birlds are killed by cats r energy sources such as coal, oil. and studies also show that wind power actually has the smallest carbon footprint compared to other sources. the president's hatred for wind

turbines seem to be tied to his battle oaf them near his golf course in scotland. and he knows better than anybody? >> i know more about isis than the generals do. i know more about courts than any human being on earth. >> i know more been steel workers than anyone who has ever run for office. >> i know more about drones than anybody. >> i can tell you more about caterpillar tractors than the people that work there. >> i know more about debt than practically anybody. i love debt. >> he knows, just ask him. let check in with chris to see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. hello, my friend. how are you? >> how are you? the best to you and the family. i'm trying to get you a little background on this, other than a personality mix about the president saying things he can't

back up. ludite is someone incompetent when using new technology, came into the vogue in the 1800s, the back story which may or may not be true is a young man named ned lud, who might have broken an expensive knitting machine in england because he didn't like that machines were taking over. that is what the president tries to channel. it almost like being about flat earth. but as you said, we're about facts and we have a new timeline that makes the situation painfully clear with ukraine. >> we're looking forward to that. all the best to your family as well. still to come on "360," what rudy giuliani is saying and why so many people are now talking about it. did have

. president trump's tv story rudy giuliani takes time to sit down with a reporter in person recently. it was titled "a conversation with rudy giuliani over bloody marys at the hotel." they also smoke about the senate impeachment trial. she wrote "visions of

cross-examining -- cross-examining congressional democrats and witnesses made famous during the hearings, something he hance done since the 90s, satisfied his doo sire for revenge i'm great at it. it what i do best as a lawyer. dan a bash has had her own conversations with rudy giuliani. the idea that he would come back and lay low, i don't think anyone was expecting it. do you think there's a plan, dare i say strategy for the conversations he's having and the people he's choosing to have them with? >> no. the only thing i know or that he has said about it is that he has one but there's no evidence of that yet. laying low, of course you're right, that's not his m.o. at

all. he wanted everybody to know that he went to ukraine, he wanted everybody to know that he claims that he unearthed a lot of things that we don't know but when it comes to, well, what is it? it's in a safe, it's in a vault, i'm not going to tell you yet, we're working on it. >> we'll have to wait and see. he made some comments talking about liberal billionaire george soros, "he's hardly a jew, i'm more of a jew than he is. as we're seeing the public giuliani and getting a sense of who he is in these conversations, it's certainly in sharp contras to america's mayor and the person that many saw in the wake of 9/11. has rerealhe really changed or >> -- is it just more of the

rudy giuliani that we didn't see was coming out? >> it was probably there. after the "access hollywood" tape came out, no one would go on television except rudy giuliani. and the george soros thing, he was trying to separate himself from the notion that saying something bad about george soros is anti-semitic. that's why he said "i'm more of a jew than he is," which didn't come across the way it was intended. across the internet, across conservative media and right-wing groups, it is reminiscent of the anti-semitic attacks that have been going on for millennia about world domination and things like that. so i think that's what he was trying to do, separate himself money. >> it will be interesting to see. apparently as long as he's got the backing of the president -- >> he says he does. >> he says he's got is it for now. until then we'll wait and watch.

your phone may be ringing again soon. the news continues. i'll hand it over to chris for "primetime." >> thank you very much. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." new evidence of what i hope is getting to be pretty obvious by now. a clear timeline of what happened to aid to ukraine and when. we also have a primetime exclusive on a central player into the investigation into these rogue players around rudy giuliani. we have a newish name and a scary game afoot. now, this is it for me until after christmas so happy hanukkah, blessed nights for you you all, blessed christmas. show the love to everyone around, we need it now. we thank all of you for the gift of your time and attention. what do you say? let's get after it.