ambassador bolton also expressed frustration about ambassador sondland's expansive interpretation of his mandate. after president trump cancelled his visit to warsaw, we continued to try to appeal to the president and foreign policy and national security terms. to that end,3 c3 pompeo para mostrar la imp on september fifth i took notes

at senator chris murphy's meetings with president zelensky where president zelensky asked about the security assistance. although both senorteres stressed bipartisan support. it senator johnson further explained he- been quote shocked by president trump's negative reaction on mthe 23rd. on september 8, ambassador taylor told me quote now they're insisting zelensky commit to the investigation in an interview, which i took to refer to the three amigos. i was shocked it was so concrete. while we advised the ukrainian counterparts to fall othe rule of law and this was a demand

that president zelensky that president zelensky personally commit. on september 11 the hold was lifted after significant press coverage and bipartisan congressional concerns. we were still concerned zelensky- committed an exchange to give the requested cnn interview. we- several indications the interview would occur. first the s-conference in kiev and farid zu carria was one of the moderators. my colleague text me that quote sondland and the zelin -- sondland said the zelensky interview is supposed to be today or monday and they seemed

to announce that certain investigation was discussed. they didn't knoif sondland was advocating for it. finally also on september 13th ambassador taylor and i ran to mr. yermac. senator taylor said he hoped no interview was planned. mr. yermac did not answer and threw in a resignation as if to indicate he had no choice. to be short everyone thought there was going to be an interview. on september 21st, ambassador taylor collaborated ahead of a september 25th meeting on the margins of of the u.n. general assembly. the transcript of of the call was released the same day.

as of today i have not seen a readout of the september 25th meeting. as the impeachment inquiry has progressed i've followed prsz repots and reviewed the statements of ambassador taylor and y and you von vich. my testimony is relativatively consistent. however, i read press reports expressing for the first time that certain senior officials may have been acting without the president's knowledge or free lancing their dealings with ukraine. at the psalm time i reetd reports noting the lack off first- hand evidence in the investigation and suggesting that the only evidence being listed was hearsay. i dime realize i- had first-hand knowledge that- not otherwise been reported and that those questions bore on the question of whether the president did

have knowledge, that they were using levers of diplomatic power to influence the ukrainian president to announce an investigation against president trump's political opponent. it is at that point i made the observation that incident i witnessed july 26th- acquired greater significance which is what he reported in his testimony last week and what led to the subpoena for me to appear here today. in conclusion i'd like to turn back. on today, this very day marks exactly six years since prongs of prowestern ukrainians gathered on kiev's independent square to launch a protest of dignity. they expanded over three months

to reject the corrupt system. those events were followed by russia's occupation of the can crimea peninsula and an invasion of the eastern region and an ensuing war that to date has cost almost 13,000 lives. despite the russian aggression over the past five years ukrainians have rebuilt a shattered economy,ed ad hered ta peace process and moved closer to the west with, our oway of life. and larger majorities of ukrainians again with a fre fresh new start, replacing 80% of their parliament and endorsing a platform aligned with our strategic interests. this year's revolution at the ballot box underscores that

despite its imperfections ukraine is a vibrant democracy and an example to post soviet countries from moscow to hong kong. this will set the trajectory of our relationship with ukraine and will define our willingness to defend our prinszples. ukrainians want to hear an affirmation that our long-standing bipartisan policy of support for ukraine remains unchanged. and that we fully back it at the highest levels. now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with ukraine but rather to double down on it. as we sit here today ukrainians are fighting a hot war against russian agregz. this week alone since i have been here in washington two ukrainian soldiers were killed and two injured by russian-led

forces in eastern ukraine despite a declared ceasefire. i learned seven more were injured yesterday. vice president pence said after his mooting with president zelensky, u.s./ukraine relationship has never been stronger. they earnestly want to believe that. ukrainian cherish their bipartisan american support and recoil at the thought of playing a role in u.s. domestic politics or elections. at a time off shifting allegiances and rising competitors in the world we have no better friend than ukraine. a scrap a, unbowed, determined and above all dignified people who are standing up to russian authoritarianism. they deserve better. we're now at an inflection point in ukraine and it's critical to our national security that we stand in strong support of of

our ukrainian partners. ukrainians and freedom-loving people everywhere are watching as we set dedemocracy and the rule of law. >> thank you, mr. holmes. is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. is that right? >> perfect. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, i have a short onnening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing as a fact witness as i did during my deposition on october 14. kw i'll answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew and what i know with regarder to the subject of oyour inquiry. i believe those with information

that congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert that has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i will not provide a long statement because i believe the interest of congress and the american people is best served by allowing you to ask me can questions. and i'm with willing to expand my testimony. but before we do so, first i'd like to share who i am. i'm an american by choice. i was born in northeast of england in the same region where george washington's ancestors came from. my family have deep ties the

united states. my maternal grandfather fought through world war i surviving being shot, shelled and gassed before american troops intervened to end the world. and during the second world war members of my family fought against fascism. the men in my father's family were coal minors. they've always struggle would with poverty. when my father was 14, he joined h father, brother and cousins in the coal mine to put food on the table. when the last of the mines closed, my fath wanted to immigrate to united states working the coal mines. my grandfather- been crippled from hard labor so he stayed in northern england. my mother still lives in my home town today. while history of of immigrating

to america was thwarted, my father loved t its culture and history and a beacon of hope in the world. i began my university studies in 1994 and i just learned i went to the same university as my colleague here, mr. holmes, in scotland and in 1987 i won an academic extense to the soviet union. i was there for the inf treaty and when president ronald reagan met gorbachev in mosque oo. an american professor told me about graduate student scholarships to the united states and the very next year, thanks to his advice, i arrived in america to begin my studies unharvard. this country has offered me opportunities i never would would have had in england. i grew up poor. in england in the 1980s and

1990s, this would have impeded my financial advancement. this has never set me back in america. i grew as a nonpartisan, national security official working on soviet and your asia and my most recent under president trump as well as in my former position of master intelligence office and the president president obama. in that role i was the senior expert on russia and the former soviet republic including ukraine. it was because of my background and experience i was asked to join in 2017, the national security counsel. russia was part of my portfolio but i was also responsible for coordinating u.s. policyas

nato and the european union. i started working april 2017 and general mcmaster was a national security advisor. i thought i could help input's stated goal of improving relations with russia while still deterring russian conduct that threatens the united states, including the operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. the second thing i want to communicate. based on questions and statements i've heard, some of you on this committee appearer to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative being propigated by the russian security services them selves. russia was a foreign power that systematically attacked our dedemocratic institutions in 2016.

this is the public conclusion of our it intelligence agency. this is beyond dispute. even if some of the underlying can details must remain classified. the russian campaign remains evident today. our country is being torn apart. c foreign service is being undermined. ukraine continues to face russian aggression is pliticized. and our goal is to neutralize a perceived threat to u.s. interests. the russian security services encountered foreign policy objectives including in ukraine. when moscow wishes to reassert dominance. i do not think long-term conflict with russia is desirable or inevitable. i continueb to believe we need

to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with mosque oeeven as we countertheir efforts. right now russian security services and their proxies have geared up for the 2020 election. we're running out of of time to stopthem. in the course off the investigation i would ask -- as republicans and democrats have agreed for decades, we are valued partners of the united states and plays into our national security. i refuse to be part of an effort to delegitimate a narrative that the ukrainian government was involved and that ukraine, not russia attacked us in 2016. these fictions are harmful, even if it's just for domestic political services. they deploy millions of dollars to weaponize and arm political opposition research.

we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutio institutions. i respect the work that this congress does in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities, including this inquiry and i'm here to helpia to the best of my ability. if the president or anyone else interferes with domestic relations, that's worth attention. but we must not let can domestic politics stopping us from defending against a foreign power that truly wishes harm. >> thank you, dr. hill. we'll now proceed to the first round oquestions. there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted bay the chairman or majority counsel, fall eoed by 45 minutes for the ranking member or minority counsel.

followed by that we'll proceed under five-minute rule. i now recognize myself or majority counsel for the first round of of questions. first of all thank you both for being here. thank you for testifying. dr. hill, your story reminds me a great deal of what we heard from alexander vindman. the few immigrant stories in the course of the hearings are among the most powerful i think i've ever heard. you and dr. -- colonel vindman and others are the best of of it this country and you came here by choice and we are so blessed that you did. so welcome. my colleagues took some umbridge with your opening statement but i think the american people can be forgiven if they have the same impression listening to

statements that russia didn't intervene. it was an effort to take a tweet here and a op-ed there and a newspaper story here and somehow equate it with the systemic intervention our intelligence agencies found russia did through a social media campaign and a hacking and dumping operation. the report my colleagues gave you calls into question the accuracy of intelligence committee's finding that russia interveneded to help one side, he d don. and the house republican committee report is an out liar. but let me ask you, dr. hill, about your concern with that

russian narrative. that wasn't the russians that interfered in our election in 2016. this was given a boost when president in helsinki and putin said he questioned his own intelligence agencies. but why are the it russians pushing the narrative that it's ukraine? >> the russian's interest is to can delegitimize our entire presidency. i think this would resonate with our colleagues on the commit canny from the republican party is that gel of the russians was to put whoever became the pd president by trying to put their hands on one side of the scale under a cloud. so if secretary clinton had been elected, she too with would have- major questions about her legitimacy. and i think what we're seeing

here as a result of all of these -- this is exactly what the russian government was hoping for. seed doubt, they have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate. that they would pick one side as our electorate against another. that they would pit one party against the other. and that's why i wanted to make such a strong point at the verier beginning. because there were individuals in other countries that- harsh words for both of of the countries, harsh words for many of the candidates during the primaries. we- a lot off people running for president on the republican side. there were a lot of people trying to gain the outcome. in the united kingdom, the bookies take bets. you can lay a bet on who you think is going to be a candidate. so the russian government were trying to lay their own bets. they wanted to make sure whoever

they bet on and whoever tried to tip the scales would also experience discomfort. that they would be beholden to them in some way and that they would create the kind of chaos we've seen. i want to emphasize we need to be careful as we dediscuiscuss these issues not to give them more fodder to use against us in 2020. >> i think you're right the russians are equal opportunity medullares. they'll not only help one side but seek to sew discord in the united states along ethnic lines, geographic lines. but there's a benefit now, isn't there for russia to put the blame on ukraine too, cast doubt whether they intervened and blame it on a u.s. ally as a way of driving a wedge between the u.s. and ukraine. >> that's absolutely the case. the russians like to put a lot

of blame on u.s. allies for incidents they have perpetrated. recently in the united kingdom and the russian secret service's attack on a former spy. well, you may recall that russians actually accused the the british government of purp traiting this themselves. this a long pattern of deflection and the russian government trying to pin the blame on someone else. and as my colleague here has laid out, the russians have a interest inputting ukrainian leaders in a very bad light. all of of the issues we started to discuss and that you on the committee have been deeply involved in began with russia's illegal annexation of the peninsula of can crimea from ukraine in 2014. in response on 2015 and all the diplomats of of aggression russia has engaged in. shooting down russian

operatives. there was a great deal of hostility and malign intent towards ukraine. if we are also looking at ukraine, that somehow -- >> mr. holmes, i want to ask a couple of quick questions and i think is often the case for people -- i was obviously at your deposition, read your opening testimony. but as you learn ermore facts, you start to see things in a different light, even though your opening statement is very consistent with that in the deposition. i was struck in particular by something you said on page ten. while we- advised our ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally having credible corruption allegations, this was a demand that president zelensky personally commit on a cable news channel to a specific investigation of president trump's political rival.

this gets to a point i made at the close of our hearing yesterday about hypocrisy. here we are and we are urging ukrainians to commit to following the rule of law, as you said. and only investigate genuine and credible allegations and what are we doing? we're asking them to investigate the president's political rivals. they're pretty sophisticated actors. they can recognize hypocrisy when they see it. what does that do with when they see us conucting in hypocrisy our selves? >> they're going to have law that pursues credible obgagszs. that's our policy and we've been daing that for quite some time with success. so focusing on particular cases, including particular cases where there is of interest to the

president. just not part of what we've done . it's hard to explain why we would do that. >> it harkens back to the conversation ambassador volker testified about when he urged ukraine not to investigate or prosecute porshang oo and his response was you mean like with the bidens and the clintons? they're sophisticated enough actors to say say as we do and not do, are they not? >> yes, sir. >> i was struck by this today. even after the aid is lifted, ukraine still felt pressure to make the statements and you and ambassador taylor were worried. ambassador taylor said he hoped

no interview was planned. mr. yermac shrugged as to indicate he- no choice. everyone thought the ukrainians believed they- to do it. you're acknowledging, are you not, that mr. ukraine very much felt pressured to undertake the investigations that the president, rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland and others were demanding? >> yes, sir. and although the hold on the security assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they wanted they weren't getting including a meeting with the president in the oval office. whether the hold -- whether the security systems hold continues or not, the ukrainians understood that's something the president wanted and they wanted things. they still need us now going forward. in fact right now president zelensky is trying to arrange a summit meeting with president putin to try to advance the peace process.

he needs our support. he needs presidentpu putin to understand that america supports it them at the highest levels. ukraine still needs us and still fighting the war to the very day. >> i would underscore as my colleague did so eloquently. they got caught. that's the reason the aid was finally lifted. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to both off you. yesterday we heard testimony from ambassador gordon sondland from the european union who testified president trump wanted ukraine to announce the investigations into biden -- the bidens burisma and the 2016 elections because they would benefit him politically and that he used the leverage of the white house meeting and the security assistance to pressure president zelensky to do so. dr. hill, you testified, i believe in midjune, ambassador

sondland told you he was in charge of ukraine policy. is that right? >> that's right. >> who did he tell you put him in charge? >> he told me it was the president. >> did you also understand ambassador sondland- been given authority over ukraine policy from the president? >> we understood that he had been told to work with mr. rudy giuliani. >> did he hold himself to have contact with with the president's priorities and interests? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to the july 26th date when you overheard the conversation and i'm going to ask you about the lead up to the conversation. you said you accompanied

ambassador sondland, volker and taylorer to a meeting with president zelensky. >> that's right. >> and you took notes? >> yes, sir. >> and you reviewed those notes before you testified today? >> yes. >> and they were helpful to refresh your recollection? >> yes. >> during that meeting president zelensky said on his phone call with president trump the previous day that three times president trump had mentioned sensitive issues. did you understand what president zelensky was referring to when he said the sensitive issues? >> couldn't be sure what he was referring to until i later read the transcript of the july 25th call. but i was aware of various contacts between the three amigos and his government about the set of issues. >> and after you read the call, what did you determn to be the sensitive issues? >> the burisma/biden investigations.

>> you testified ambassador sondlan sondland had a one-on-one meeting with yermac and you were prohibited to gein and take notes? >> that's right. >> and ambassador sondland said he probably discussed the investigations with yermac. did he tell you what they discussed? >> he did not. >> after this meeting, you went to lunch. can you describe where you were sitting at the restaurant. >> yes, sir. the restaurant has glass doors that open on to a terrace and we were at the first table on the terrace. so immediately outside of the interior of the restaurant. the doors were wide open. there were tables. i recall two tables of otwo pushed together. and the table was set with a

runner down the middle. i was direct ly across from ambassador sond lnd and the two staffers were to our rights at this next table. >> you said at some point ambassador sondland pulled out his cell phone and called president trump. this was an unsecure cell phone. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> in the middle of a a restaurant in kiev? >> yes, sir. >> you said you were able to hear president trump's voice through the receiver. how were you able to hear if it was not on a speaker phone? >> two things. it was quite loud, quite distinctfive. and i think ambassador sondland said he often speaks loudly on the phone. and i've experienced that.

he kind of winced and held the phone away from his ear and he did that for the first couple of of exchanges. i don't know if the president moderated his volume, i don't know. but that's howb i was able it t hear. >> so you were able to see hear part of what was said? >> the first part, yes. >> what did you hear president trump say to ambassador sondland? >> clarify whether he was in ukraine or not and he said yes, i'm in ukraine. ambassador sondlands said he loves your as and do the investigation. >> so you heard president trump ask ambassador sondland is he going to do the investigation? >> yes, sir. >> what was ambassador sondland's response? >> he said oh, yeah, he's going to do it.

he'll do anything you ask. >> and was that the end of the ukraine-portion of the conversation? >> yes. >> after you discussed a follow on conversation where you asked generally what did president trump think of ukraine. what did ambassador sondland say to you? >> that he doesn't really care about ukraine. >> did he use slightly more colorful language than that? >> he did. >> what did he say he does care about? >> big stuff. >> did he explain what he meant by big stuff? >> i said we have big stuff going on here like a war with russia and he said no, big stuff like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani -- >> now, were you particular with

the biden investigation which he referenced at that point? >> yes. >> how do you have such a specific and clear recollection of the conversation with the president and yours with ambassador sondland? >> so this was a very distinctive experience. in my foreign service career. someone at a lunch in a restaurant making a call on a cell phone to the president of the united states. being able to hear his voice, very distinctive personality. you've seen him on the televugz. colorful language was used. they were directly addressing something i- been wondering about working on for weeks. something that led to the recall of my former boss, the ambrasder. and this is someone who said they- direct contact with the president. here he is actually having the

contact with the president, hearing the president's vous ic and talking about the issue of the of the biden investigation that i- been hearing about. >> so during the phone call that you overheard ambassador sondland have with president trump, you heard president trump himself ask -- the only question you really heard him ask, i believe, is whether he was going to do the investigation, to which ambassador sondland responded he would and he would in fact do anything that president zelensky wants. is that an accurate resitation of what happened? >> that's correct. >> and after that call you had a subsequent conversation with sondland where he said president doesn't care about ukraine. he cares about himself and apparently the investigation that giuliani was pushing?

>> correct. >> a day before your lunch, president trump did speak with president zelensky and certainly the president made it clear to president zelensky that he cared about the biden investigation. now, neither of you listened to the call but you both read it subsequent to its publication. during your two and a half years in the white house listened to a number of presidential phone calls. is that right? >> sorry. >> can you estimate how many? is >> i can't, actually . sometimes there would be multiple calls in a week. i was there for two years. >> you ever heard a call like this one that you read? >> i don't want to comment on this call because this is, in my view, executive privilege. in term oz of the testimony --

>> i think there are issues of classification regarding head of state communications we do want to be sensitive to in this forum among other issues. >> i'm focussed on the one call that has been can declassified and published and asking if you've ever heard a presidential phone call along these lines? >> again i'd like the folk this is testimony on this particular call and i will say that i found this particular call subject matter and the way it was conducted alarming. >>ia said you were shocked and saddened? is >> because of the jux positionf of the issues that were raised and also given the fact that i myself have actually opposed along with ambassador bolton having a call and that we were confident the issues that ukraine and the united states

were most generally together were going to be raised. and i saw in this call this was not the case. >> you also testified you were concerned that this call was turning a white house meeting into some kind of asset. do you recall that testimony? >> i don't think it was specifically about that call but i recall the testimony because this was the discussion proceeding the call. remember i left july 19th and i left the following week. from may onward it appears very clear the white house meeting itself was predicated on other issues, merelyings haves a the investigations and interference in the elections in 2016. >> you mentioned the chief of staff to president zelensky indicated to you in this phone

call, july 25th, there were discussions about personnel issues. after you read the call, did you understand who and what that was referring to? >> yes, sir. in that brief meeting with chief of staff, who was very confusing to me why, in only the few minutes we- that would have bun the issue we raised. wasn't until i read the transcript of the call on the 25th that i understood the president specifically mentioned the prosecutor who zelensky was in the process of replacing and carving out his underlings that- been collaborating with him on the corruption there. >> i believe you also said he was the source of some off mr. giuliani's public views and allegations? >> yes, sir. so about two weeks before the prsz wave that we saw target

ambassador yovanovitch became public, they contacted us that he was sending these messages and had met with an american can journalist to get the messages out. >> what was the u.s. embassy and ukraine's view of prosecutor general? >> he was not good partner. h had failed to commit to the reforms and he was using his office to insulate and protect political allies while enriching himself. >> is another way to can describe that corrupt? >> yes. >> i want to look at a couple of kpurbts of exrpts of the july 25th call.

president trump immediately then says i would like you tado us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and you crane know as lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowd strike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server. they say ukraine has it. now, dr. hill, is this a reference to the debunked conspiracy theory about ukraine interference in the 2016 election you discussed at -- in your opening statement as well? >> the reffance to the server, yes, that's correct. >> and it is your understanding that there is no basis for these allegations. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now isn't it also true that some off president trump's most senior advisors- informed him that this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016

election was false? >> that's correct. >> is it your understanding then that president trump disare guarded advice and instead listened to rudy giuliani's views? >> that appears to be the case, yes. >> and i want to show one other exhibit that goes back to what you were testifying earlier, dr. hill, about russia's interest in promoting this theory. the this is from an february 2nd, 2017, news conference with president putin and prime minister orban of hungary. second, as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the united states, the ukrainian government adopted a favorable condition of one candidate. and certain oligarchs funded this female kand ccandidate to e

precise. why would it beto vladimir putin'sed a vantage to push this theory? >> first of all to deflect from alligations of russian interfeerngs. and drive a wedge between ukraine and united states. thirdly to besmufrp ukraine and the plolitical leadership. >> and dr. hill, by promoting the theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, was president trump adopting vladimir putin's view over his own senior advisors and intelligence officials? >> i think we have to be careful about the way that we phrase that. this is a view that's president putin and russian security services and many actor in russia have promoted. i think this view has also got

traction, perhaps in parallel and separately in the united states. and those two things have, over time, started to fuse together. >> well, back in may of this year, do you recall that president trump had a phone conversation in early may with president putin? >> i do. >> and that he met in midmay with prime minister orban? >> that's correct. >> that happened in between the time when president zelensky was elek elected april 21st and his inauguration may 20th. is that right? >> correct. >> isn't it true president trump- asked vice president pence to attend the inauguration after his phone call with president zelensky on april 21st? >> i'm not sure i can say president trump- asked vice president pence.

i was not in any meeting in which that took place. i can say myself and many others in the state department were quite keen, very eager to have vice president pence go to ukraine to represent the united states government. >> and is that your recollection, mr. holmes, that you wanted vice president pence to attend? >> yes, sir. we understood that was the plan. >> now, jennifer williams, from the office of the vice president testified on may 13th, the same day that president trump met with prime minister orban, that the president called off vice president pence's trip for unknown reasons but before the inauguration date had been scheduled. dr. hill, were you aware also that during the period there was a lot of pub lis itty and i think you referenced this as well.

about rude agiuliani's interest in these investigations in ukraine? >> i was certainly aware, yes. >> and around that time i believe you testified that ambassador bolton had expressed views to you about m mr. giuliani's interest in ukraine. >> i do recall, yes. it was part of a kapconversatio about the things that mr. giuliani was saying very frequently in public. we saw him often on television making these statements. and had already brought to attention mr. bolton's attention, the smear campaigns and expressed great regret about how this was unfolding and in fact the shameful way in which

ambassador yovanovitch was being smeared and attacked. i asked if there was anything we could do about it and ambassador bolton had looked pained, indicated with body language there was nothing to do about it. he then said rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. >> do you understand what he meant? >> i did, actually. he meant obviously what mr. giuliani was saying was pretty explosive. he was frequently on television making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved and that he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would probably come back to haunt us and i think that's where we are today. >> mr. holmes, did the ukrainians understand mr. giuliani represents the president's views? >> i believe they did. first, he was reaching out to them directly.

he also -- ambassador yovanovitch's removal i think is relevant to the inquiry. because she was removed following the media campaign in which giuliani and associates were very prominent and criticizing her for not taking serious lathe theories and issues that later came up. so when she was removed, commentators in ukraine believed that lutsenko- succeeded in getting rid of her. they were aware of the issues he was promoting and that ultimately he was able to get an ambassador removed. so he was someone to contend with. and immediately after the inauguration he started reaching out to zelensky key figures and continue to do that. >> let's focus on the inaugier

fragz a moment. you escorted the u.s. delegation around? >> so i joined them in some of their meetings but not the entire day. >> who was on the official it delegation? >> five people. so as the head of the delegation was secretary perry and then ambassador volker, sondland, our temporary joseph pennington. >> and did the delegation have a meeting with president zelensky you attended? >> yes. >> and you testified previously that secretary carey gave you alist. do you recall that? >> secretary perry is the head of the delegation, opened the meeting to the american side and- a number of points he made. and during that period, he handed over a piece of paper. i did not see what was on the

paper but secretary perry described what was on the paper as a lists of trusted individuals and recommended president zelensky could draw from that list for a can device of issues. >> do you know who was on the list? >> i didn't see the list. i don't know. there are other people who have been in the mix for a while on this set of issues. secretary perry, as i mentioned, as being people to consult on reform. >> and are they americans? >> yes. >> do you recall that colonel vindman spoke to president zelensky in the meeting. and what it did he say in terms of some of the issues erwoo rr addressing here in the investigation? >> yes, sir. he was the last to speak. he made a general importance about ukraine and our national

security and he said it's very important that zelensky administration stay out of politics. >> was it your understanding they were already starting to feel pressure to conduct these political investigations? >> yes. >> and those were the ones related to biden burisma and the 2016 election? >> correct. >> you also testified around the same time in may you learned president trump was receiving information from someone else at the national security counsel. is that right? >> that's not quite right. i was told in passing that someone else at the national security counsel, that the president may want to speak to them because of materials related to ukraine. >> and did that person indicate the president thought that was the director of ukraine? >> that was correct. a very brief conversation, just to be clear. >> who is the director of of ukraine? >> alex vindman, colonel vindman.

>> and who did this individual in the secretary's office refer to? >> the individual just said the name cash. >> and did you know who that was? >> initially when i was thinking about it, but have to search my mind and the only cash i knew was cash putell. >> and he did not with work on ukraine matters that you over saw? >> not that i oversaw, no. >> so the indication is that patel provided information to the president wut your knowledge? >> that seemed to be the indication. >> i want to go back to the july 25th call where president trump, in another excerpt, asked bout the potential political opone pt, joe biden. in this kperpt the presidents said there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution.

so whatever you can do with the attorney general, would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you could look into it. it sounds horrible to me. this was of course one of the allegations that rudy giuliani was pushing. >> correct. >> and now confirmed in the july 25th call that the president was also interested unit? >> yes. >> ambassadors volker and sondland have tried to draw a distinction of a connection between the burisma and the bidens. was it parent to you when anyone was pushing an investigation to burisma, that reason they wanted that related to what president trump said here, the bidens? >> it was very apparent to he that was what rudy giuliani

wanted to say. >> and you understood burisma was can code for bidens? >> yes. >> and you think anyone involved in the spring or summer would understand that as well? >> yes. >> dr. hill, are you aware of any evidence to support the allegations against vice president biden? >> i'm not, no. >> and in fact, mr. holmes, the former prosecutor general of ukraine, who vice president biden encouraged to fire was actually corrupt, is that right? >> correct. >> and was not pursuing investigations and prosecutions, correct? >> my understanding is the prosecutor general that the time was not at that time pursuing investigations of burisma or the bidens. >> and in fact removing the corrupt prosecutor general was part of the united states' anticorruption policy. isn't that correct? >> that's correct and not just

us. but all of of our allies and others involved in ukraine that time. >> now can dr. hill you indicated earlier you understood a white house meeting was conditioned on the pursuit of of ukraine by the investigations. i want to focus on the july 10th meeting in the kwhies white house where that came to light. you indicated in your testimony there was a large meeting that ambassador bolton ran where ambassador sondland, volker and secretary perry also attended. >> that's correct, yes. >> and why were they included in a meeting with two ukrainian officials about national security matters? >> the initial init tent- n hadt been to include them. this is usually the procedure to have a number of meetings and meetings at the state department. and then there was a request to

have ambassadors sondland and volkerr volker included coming directly from their offices. and as a result, clearly given the important role secretary perry was playing in the energy sector reform of ukraine and that he- been in the delegation to the inauguration in ukraine, we decided it would be better to include all three of them. >> they raised their ongoing dedesire for an oval office meeting. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> what happen after that? >> i want to point out something where i think it's easy to explain why he had a different the t-- interpretation. the meeting- been scheduled for about 45 minutes to an hour. and it was definitely in the

wrap-up phase of the meetic wng when this occurred. alaxander, the designated national security advisor of ukraine, wanted to gt in the weeds of how we might reform a national security counsel. he was hoping and- this opportunity with the national security advisor of the united states to get his first-hand opinions and thoughts on what might happen. we also wanted to go through a discussion of how important it was to get their energy sector reform underway and secretary perry had talking points. and we knew they would have on their agenda the question about a meeting. so as we get through the main dis cushion, we're geing to the wrap-up phase. ukrainian thought to ask about the white house meeting and ambassador bolton would try to pair a ethis back.

he's not in charge of skej tcheg the meeting. we have input recommending the meeting. so it's that inambassador's role to pull out the schedule and say we'll see eif this tuesday and monday is going to work. and he does not, as a matter of course, like to discuss the it details of the meetings. this is already going to be an uncomfortable issue. as ambassador bolton was trueing to huv tmove the discussion awa ambassador sondland leaped in basically to say we have an agreement that there will be a meeting, a specific investigation put underway. and that's when i saw ambassador bolton sit back slightly like this. he- been more moving forward like i am to the table. and for me that was an unmistakable body language and

it caught my attention. and then he looked up to the clock or towards his wrist in any case and basically said, well, it's been great to see you. i'm afraid i've got another meeting.meeting. >> and did ambassador sondland say who his agreement on this white house meeting was with? >> in that particular juncture, i don't believe so. it was later, which i'm sure you'll want to talk about, that he did say more specifically. >> and what did he say later? >> later, he said that he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney that -- in return for investigations, this meeting would get scheduled. >> and was he specific at that point later about the investigations that he was referring to? >> he said the investigations in burisma. >> now, did you have conversation with ambassador bolton after this subsequent meeting with ambassador sondland? >> i had a discussion with ambassador bolton both after the meeting in his office, a very brief one. and then one immediately after what was the subsequent meeting. >> so the subsequent meeting or

the after both meetings when you spoke to him and relayed to him what ambassador sondland said, what did ambassador bolton say to you? >> well, i just want to highlight, first of all, that ambassador bolton wanted me to hold back in the room after the meeting. again, i was sitting on the sofa with a colleague. >> right. but just in that second meeting. >> yes but he was making a very strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said. and when i came back and related it to him, he had some very specific instruction for me. and i'm presuming that that's -- >> what was that specific instruction? >> the specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers, to john eisenberg, i was senior counsel for the national security council to basically say you tell eisenberg, ambassador bolton told me, that i am not part of this, whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean

investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> and you relayed everything that you just told us? >> i relayed it precisely. and then the more the details of how the meeting had unfolded, as well. which i gave a full description of this in my october 14 deposition. >> mr. holmes, you have testified that by late august, you has -- you had a clear impression that the security assistance hold was somehow connected to the investigations that president trump wanted. how did you conclude -- how did you make reach that clear conclusion? >> sir, we'd been hearing about the investigation since march. months before. and we'd been -- president zelensky had received a letter, congratulatory letter, from the president saying he'd be pleased to meet him following his

inauguration in may. and we hadn't been able to get is th that meeting. and then the security hold came up with no explanation. and i -- i'd be surprised if any of the ukrainians you said earlier we discussed earlier, you know, sophisticated people, when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they wouldn't have drawn that conclusion. >> because the investigations were still being pursued? >> correct. >> and the hold was still remaining without explanation? >> correct. >> so this, to you, was the only logical conclusion that you could reach? >> correct. >> sort of like two plus two equals four? >> exactly. >> chairman, i yield. >> that concludes the majority questioning. we are expected to have votes i think fairly soon. this will be appropriate time to break and we'll resume with a minority 45 minutes. if people, before they leave, could allow the witnesses to leave first and if committee

members would come back promptly after votes. all right. we're just 45 minutes now into the questioning by democrats. as noted, the members are going to be attending some votes on separate matters and then resume with republican questioning. but we've seen two pretty extraordinary witnesses. fiona hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, senior director for europe and russia, really describing with color, with context, and -- and, savannah, not afraid to really kind of inform the committee about her view of russia and really digging deep into her knowledge. and not some of the more narrow testimony we've heard along the way. >> yeah. there's some witnesses who clearly have been apprised probably by their counsel, just answer the question that's directly in front of you. you don't need to expand on it. here's a witness that has a lot of confidence and is willing to

go a little bit farther than what's asked. she starts by kind of giving certain members a scolding about russia. she says don't play into russia's hands essentially and -- so there was a little back and forth there. and then she sets the scene as we turn to our panel, chuck rosenberg on the set with us here, she sets the scene in this dramatic july 10th meeting. now, we've heard about this from various parties who were there. and in some ways, some of the accounts differ but essentially, they don't. that there comes a time in this meeting where gordon sondland, the eu ambassador, leans over and says to the ukrainians. look, if you're going to do these investigations, you can get the white house meeting and ambassador john bolton, the national security advisor at the time, according to fiona hill, stiffens up in his chair she says. >> her testimony was very compelling. as you said, context and color, lester. i mean, this notion that she was taking account of where people are sitting, his body language. she looked at the clock.

she looked at his wrist. she saw all these things going on and her. look, stories always differ in some detail in the retelling. different people have different perceptions that come in and out of meetings. they don't listen to every word. we should expect that. but where it was the same, exactly as you said, is on this notion that sondland specifically linked a desire for investigations into burisma and, therefore, the bidens, right, to a white house meeting. and then subsequently to military assistance. fiona hill said this is exactly what the russian government was hoping for. i thought those words were chilling. >> the other witness, of course, david holmes, embassy staffer, foreign service officer. he also in very precise terms really describes the setting of the phone call that he overheard between sondland and the president. they're sitting on a terrace next to the open window. overhearing the conversation on the phone. i think a lot of us have heard that before when you've got a

powerful speaker and, you know, you hold the phone to the side. but -- but again, very compelling testimony. >> please. >> well, in fact, david holmes making it very clear this was so extraordinary. he is a note taker. he's a foreign service officer. an experienced diplomat. trained to remember and take notes from meetings. he was kept out of a critical meeting right after president zelensky had been meeting with gordon sondland. he was then with yermak, the chief of staff, and kept out of that. he was supposed to be in it. was kept out of it. clearly, they were talking about something they didn't want to know. immediately thereafter, they go to this restaurant. they're sitting outside. he had never before in his experience seen a u.s. official use his cell phone in public like that, call a president of the united states. and he is then overhearing the president using expletives and very direct language. it was such a compelling and note-worthy occasion. and clearing up the mystery of why all these secret deals were going on. why was -- why was rudy giuliani doing this?

what was happening? he was confused over months and weeks. and now, it was all laid out for him by the president himself with sondland. >> let's turn to michael mcfaul, who is former ambassador to russia. mr. ambassador, let's talk about john bolton because he's the missing link here in the terms of this july 10th meeting. although, his -- his former deputy fiona hill says that after the meeting, that july 10th meeting, where he had kind of recoiled and stiffened, bolton then says to her, you go and you go toll tell the nsc la. i'm not part of whatever drug deal they're cooking up, which i think is national security council speak for something that sounds kind of nefarious. is not a literal dug drarug dea something on the side that obviously bolton was uncomfortable with. >> absolutely. and fiona testified very eloquently about it. i should call her dr. fiona hill. i've known fiona for three decades so it's hard for me to do that. and i thought that was incredibly damning.

there's no ambiguity at all that there was a quid pro quo for the meeting. but i also thought it was very damning what david holmes said. by the way, somebody i also worked with in moscow. when he reported, when he testified today that when bolton was visiting ukraine in august, he made pretty clear that the military assistance will not be lifted without these investigations. and remember, yesterday, that was a key point for many republican lawmakers. they were trying to disentangle that and say, no, no, these were not connected. mr. homes made it very clear that they were connected. >> ambassador mcfaul, dr. hill really stuck her neck out very early about the -- you know, the thoughts of some committee members about whether russia interfered in the election. were you surprised to hear her go there? and do you think that that's going to really make her a big target in this next round of questioning? >> i wasn't surprised because, again, i've known fiona for a long, long time. she's one of our country's best experts on russia. she wrote the definitive book on

vladimir putin and i say that as somebody who's also written books about putin. it's better than mine. and so this crazy scheme propagated by putin and then echoed by the president of the united states, let's be clear about that, her boss for 2 1/2 years, she just decided we have to go after this. there's no crowd strike server in ukraine. ukraine did not interfere in our elections. and -- and i know she's gonna take some heat for that but i would be very careful if i were those republicans. she knows the facts here cold a lot better than anybody who's going to try to trip her up in the next several hours of testimony. >> let me turn to chuck todd who has been listening along with us other the last few days of testimony. and we noticed with ambassador volker and with ambassador sondland, both of them tried to -- to use volker's words, thread the needle. and say, you know, early on when there was talk about investigating corruption at burisma, the ukrainian energy company, we didn't quite put it

together in our heads that that meant investigations into hunter biden. well, this witness, fiona hill, says there is no way, and holmes agreed, there's no way that anybody who was working on ukraine policy during the spring and summer wouldn't have known that burisma equals biden. why is that so important? >> well, it's important because i think that what sondland and volker are trying to do is sort of say, oh, my god, we didn't know until the very end that's what rudy was doing. and now, matching up with by the end of august bolton realized that this is what the president's demand was and this is what it was going to be. look, i think this underscores the challenge democrats have after today. and it's this. it's clear all of this testimony has built this very damning case. at the same time, there's more bread crumb trails to follow. and there's more investigating to do. and i think it is -- they're gonna probably -- i think they

have enough information -- do you bring volker back? do you bring sondland back? >> well, that goes to the question i was trying to ask you before we started, which is the calendar calendar versus the political calendar. >> and i'll just say this. i think democrats got to be careful here. if they short circuit this, right, you know, look. if this were a courtroom trial, they have the evidence. they're done. they could rest their case. go to jury, fine. they've got to win a political argument. they can win the technical but they got to win the political argument. and while plenty of people may be skeptical that more witnesses, even if they're named john bolton, isn't going to penetrate anything. okay. but do you need to get caught trying? do they need to keep going down this road? i mean, i -- i think that they -- the democrats have to think long and hard about -- about an appearance that they're sort of short circuiting this. that they're cutting off leads when they should continue to go only because they want to avoid the presidential race. be careful.

>> you're a sports fan here. are either of these witnesses the closer? i mean, who is the closer? >> i completely agree. look. to me, we know who the closer is at this point or at least the -- the -- it would be john bolton. i mean, you could say it could be a mick mulvaney or mike pompeo but neither one of them -- they don't appear eager to come. i'm not saying bolton is eager but bolton has certainly indicated that under certain legal circumstances, he's willing to share what he knows. i think he's the -- here's the thing. i think yesterday probably did more to compel him to come forward on what sondland said more so than today. i mean, i think today he's largely going to get backed up. i think sondland looping bolton into this may inspire bolton to decide, all right, i'm gonna share everything i need to share. but look. all of this may get solved on monday when the courts decide if don mcgahn is basically allowed the former white house counsel

who congressional democrats have been trying to -- to subpoena to get in front of them. if the courts basically say congress has a right -- that yes he has to testify, that may open the door for bolton legally, too, and make him more comfortable. but i'll tell you this. if today is the last day of televised hearings, i don't think they have their closer yet. >> it's interesting, too, because chuck raises the dilemma for democrats. they say we've turned over every stone, we got every witness. or do they try to do it on a faster track because of the political calendar and the elections? they do have the argument that these witnesses who could be called, such as mulvaney, such as pompeo, such as bolton, right now are resisting those calls to testify. let's go to peter alexander. he's at the white house watching along and what are we hearing from the white house? >> yeah. savannah, the point you make is a significant one. obviously, it's those individuals, mick mulvaney, mike pompeo, others, who would have firsthand knowledge obviously. they have refused to testify

following the orders of the white house here. and that, in fact, is the defense of the white house as we hear from aides behind the scenes right now. they're saying, hey, look at these two witnesses today. you may think they're credible but they have no firsthand information. they're talking about conversations they heard or other events that they read about. they weren't there. one campaign aide describing this in their words as a joke. we will hear from the president a little bit later today after 3:00. he is hosting an event here. the president over the course of the day attacking democrats describing them today as human scum. i would emphasize the point you made earlier, which is rebutting what we heard earlier from gordon sondland. we now hear from holmes that sondland did know burisma was connected to biden. back to you. >> all right. peter, thanks very much. so with this committee in recess for a bit, we're going to return you to regular programming for now. we think they'll be back around 12:30 eastern. we'll certainly come back, though, with full questioning of today's witnesses when it

resumes in an hour. including questions republican members. until then, we hope you'll stay ation.his nbc station. we'll see you shortly for savannah and all our colleagues here, i'm lester holt. nbc news in new york in style. ♪ one and only there is always room here for the ♪ to watch your broken dreams dance in and out of the beams of a neon moon ♪ >> if you don't know that song, that is a great song to stream today. "neon moon." that is brooks & dunn. this is a kacey musgraves version of that songly who we all sat down with kelly who posed the question, which cast member would you want in the wilderness with you?

>> who would you pick in the wilderness you had to just pick one of them >> i feel like blake because he -- he has all this acres of ranch land >> i have land as well >> i feel like he would know a lot of outdoorsy things that would get us through life. >> who would you pick? >> i would pick blake and kill him and take the vodka in his back pocket. >> i have news for you, you see his starbucks mug on the voice, right? it ain't coffee! >> it ain't coffee i have news for you. >> i don't know how y'all do this job without drinking. >> yeah, cameras are on. blake obviously the easiest choice there >> what was it lost on us? >> yeah. you played guitar. >> i never get to play too much with the coaches it's a lot of fun. thank you, kelly for even inviting me. the late late show james cordon got the cast of

"frozen" together for another round of the hilarious and dangerous cross walk musicals which, yes, drops a full broadway production right in the middle of a busy intersection. >> elsa? ♪ ♪ do you want to build a snowman ♪ ♪ i never see you anymore come >> go! go! out the door ♪ >> go! go >> that is great >> that's brilliant. cross walk musical >> brilliant. wanted to play. so there you go. >> redrumming. so many of you know her >> oh, yeah. james wanted to play so there you go.

>> redrumming. so many of you know her from the pioneer woman. she comes up with amazing country dishes sometimes they're healthy. sometimes they're the opposite of that. and she recently sat down with savannah for a series, six minute marathon and she talked about one of her favorite dishes >> you have friends coming over for dinner, what is the go-to recipe >> i have to say it's some kind of lasagne you know, a really creamy white lasagne with a great salad you know, no one will turn that down or some kind of roast beef with a really cheesy macand cheese casserole. >> i like the style. lots of cheese >> we watched that show. she lives on one million acres and she makes lunch for her husband and the boys working out in the field and takes it in the truck. goes down there. >> coolest >> so good >> remember when she came and cooked for us. >> incredible. >> six minute marathon watch that thing on today.com. she'll reveal the favorite family traditions. >> the we're going to make room for kacey musgraves. she's had an incredible year even more exciting projects on the way. we'll talk to kacey in just a moment first, a closer look at music's biggest scenes

>> country music sensation kacey musgraves, the arrow has been pointing to the top of the charts she's won six grammys, four of them this year including album of the year for golden hour. ♪ this is kacey when she was 9 years old. she says rainbow connection was one of the first songs she ever learned to sing. ♪ some day we'll find it the rainbow commission ♪ ♪ the dreamer in me >> at last week's country music association awards, she sang it again. this time with willie nelson front of a much bigger audience. >> and the cma award goes to

kacey musgraves! >> and she went on to win the award for female vocalist of the year >> the female creative spirit, female energy is really needed right now. it's really important. >> now she is helping us get into the holiday spirit with the release of the kacey musgrave's christmas show on amazon ♪ glittering you light me up >> bringing together a hollywood who's who to help spread some holiday cheer. >> i hope you like it. ♪ >> see, that's how you do it >> thank you >> hi, girl. >> christmas special i mean, it's kind of like a variety show you do i alittle acting on it.

>> oh, my gosh yeah i'm officially a triple threat now. acting, singing, dancing, comedy, all of it. but really this special is centered around the music and the songs. i made a christmas album a few years ago. this is us bringing that to life and having some fun with it, bringing in some special guests. james cordon, my grandmother >> you made the article today. it was literally, kacey musgraves nana steals the special. >> oh, yeah. this is her special. i'm just in it she came in and delivered. she gave us ad lib >> were you worried about her on camera >> i was wondering, you know, nana this is not yale -- she hasn't done this a lot i was a little worried is she going to forget her lines? she showed me up she showed me up. >> what did your nana think when you stepped on that stage and won that award what did they think? >> they're really proud. and, i mean, they've been with me since the very beginning. carting me around in the minivan in texas and just making ends meet and helping me achieve dreams from a really young age they've been there for me since

day one. and so it's extra special too that i just, you know, they got to see me sing this song with willie that -- that is one of first songs i ever learned >> we should look back at that video of you when you were 9 years old. do you remember what it felt like in that moment to be standing up? were you in church >> i was in a vocal lesson learning how to sing >> there you are >> yeah, there i am. >> you moved away as a teenager to go be a singer. you were doing it since you were little >> just like dolly, she always had a gut. she knew this is where she was headed did you feel that way? >> yeah, 100%. there was never a backup plan. if this doesn't work, it was all

in i just knew in my heart. this is what i'm going to do it just was my passion from the very beginning and then i discovered songwriting in my teenage years. i got my feelings out. and it became an outlet for me and then i would say that first and foremost i'm a songwriter then a singer. but it was really cool in the new christmas special that i got to explore different areas of things that i never done before. i was really out of my comfort zone i was up there with some greats like james cordon and fred armastan, comedy geniuses. and then people that i genuinely love, leon bridges is in there >> also looks really good. the christmas specials pop-up on networks they're good and funny but, like, this is for amazon >> yes. >> shot in santa monica? >> it was shot in l.a. throughout the summer. it was sweltering hot and wearing the christmas clothes. this has been about a year in the making every stitch that you see has been meticulously crafted. about a year ago this started as a little seed of an idea

it turned into a real thing. dreaming up this set, looking kind of like a doll house. and then the coordinating outfits to the rooms and the jokes and -- >> one of the more powerful moments that the women on stage in solidarity and we -- there's been a conversation in this country over the past few months about women in country music and the fact that their music doesn't get played as often as men. why is that? why do you that i is >> i can't tell you. i can't figure that one out. i stopped trying a long time ago. i stay in my own lane and do my own thing. i think it's beautiful that country music was built on some really very strong female narratives and, you know, perspectives and opinions. look at loretta lynn and dolly parton i'm going to keep doing my thing. if that sounds country, that's

country. if it is something else, its going to be something else i try not to pay attention to any of that. >> we love your songs. you're on repeat at my house all the time thank you so much. good morning to you, the bart train stabber is due in court today. oliver williams was stabbed with his own knife. the suspect had been a patient at a hospital and walked away from the facility. williams' family members say he was a beloved uncle, family man, and a long time raiders fan. >> we're looking over here, the freeway is bogged down as you travel north past the coliseum

if is slow all of the way up in toward the oakland downtown area. the same thing for 588. the east shore freeway at it's worst right now as far as the volume and the slowing recovering over the next hour as things start to clear out a bit. d dumbarton bridge will be busy. we show a slow drive. it moves steadily, that's what counts. back to you. >> we'll have another local news update in 30 minutes.

great gifts at this price? is this for real? not exactly that's bargain bliss setting in you're basking in the glow of great gifts at deep discount prices. and is that... mmhmm ♪grocery outlet jingle i want a doll house, a pony bike

good morn good morning, everybody. it is thursday morning 21st of november, 2019 we're so happy to have a great crowd on plaza beautiful day out here we say hello yes. let's get a selfie

we have to flip it around. >> it is like an awesome day, you guys we have an incredible crowd. and we are looking for somebody in this beautiful crowd who showed up. i think she was first in line. i only know because i think i saw her. her name is lisa from long island where is lisa? >> oh, lisa. >> lisa from long island hi, lisa i walked in this morning lisa was already out there bright and early and you came up to me and what did you say? >> i said i love the "today" show >> and >> and can we take a picture and i said kathie lee because i got so nervous i really wanted to meet jamie lee curtis >> why do you want to meet her >> i've been told that i look like her >> i can see that. >> and we wear the same -- wait a minute wait a minute! >> wait for it take a picture >> wow >> look at that. a reunion. crazy. >> oh, my goodness

>> yes >> separated at birth. >> look at you two >> wow this is the best you have no idea >> take it for your husband. >> here. you take it. >> thank you >> ask hoda to take it hoda is going to take the shot one, two, three. >> wow >> y'all are adorable. jamie lee, we love you god bless you. >> thank you >> here you go >> merry christmas, happy new year, everybody. and oh, it's thanksgiving. >> we'll talk to you in just a minute >> god bless you. >> one of the hall of fame guests to come on the show one of the best. >> thank you >> we love you, jamie lee. we'll see her in a few minutes >> she also found a new stand in >> yes >> a little stunt double >> yeah. >> jewelry designer jennifer fisher is here to help us add

bling to our holiday party outfits. she's going to show us the festive touch that's will make all the difference in the world without going overboard. >> i often go overboard. plus, we're about to take our countdown to thanksgiving next level. martha is here tips and recipes for your turkey, mashed potatoes and a pumped up pumpkin pie. >> meantime, craig and al, you packed your bags and getting on a flight to nashville. >> that's right. >> we're doing the third hour of "today" live from music city usa. we've got chanel already down there. dylan already taped some stuff it is going to be a big party down in nashville. >> fun >> and all sorts of stuff. >> you have a big night. >> oh, yeah. >> you have a big fourth hour. >> can we show one thing can we just come right in here for one second look this is jenna right here at camp long horn. and what is your connection to this camp? >> i go and my mom went to camp with jenna >> she did what is your mom's name? >> megs. >> cute. >> okay.

well, it goods to see you. thank you. camp longhorn is represented >> it is >> we hear about it all the time. >> you have a check of the weather? >> let's look at your weekend outlook coming up. we start off with tomorrow gusty winds in the northeast strong storms through the gulf november chill in the southwest. pleasant in the plains on saturday rain and snow in the northwest a travel mess in the mississippi and ohio river valleys sunday, sunday, a mix of snow, wind, rain in the northeast. much warmer in the plains. good morning, i'm kari hall, a live look outside at the golden gate bridge. our skies are clear and our winds will be calming down as we go throughout the day. in san francisco, we'll see some mid 60s in oakland up to 66 degrees in the tri-valley today. over the next several days we will be warming up and reaching the low 70s by the weekend. get out and enjoy it because

temperatures drop and rain moves in by the middle of next week. don't don't forget go to today show sirius/xm channel 108 and listen all day long savannah >> thank you now to today's style holiday party season is almost here instead of spending a ton of money on a new outfit, how about making a festive statement with your accessories jennifer fisher is a fashion and lifestyle expert, mom of two and creator and founder of jewelry line she's here with her favorite holiday jewelry hacks. good morning good to see you. >> good morning. >> this is fun sometimes we just don't want to buy a whole new outfit but the jewelry can jazz it up >> you probably have clothes at home, something black, something light. it is just great to add something a little sparkle >> black on black. >> i love black on black

it jazzes it up a little bit even if you have a all white look, it's great to do something clear. you can wear them all year the wear them year round. >> you said stars, they're in stars? >> always. year round again you can buy these. wear them all year you can wear them forth of july and christmas, all the time. its something you will always have and you can wear over and over again. >> your known for hoops. i have never seen ones like these. >> these are great can you have them all year and you're not wearing a christmas tree you're wearing a hoop and it's color. >> you would wear that red hoop with a red dress, for example? >> you can wear it with red, black, white, a print. it's great all of them work with prints and solids, everything >> okay. for the next one, what is old is new again. sometimes you have something that you think you're ready to get rid of or don't wear you think it's out of style. >> no.

you come home and you're missing an earring one night, that's the worst thing. it's not garbage wear it. buy one of these these are great. it's a little everything for studs. can you get them anywhere under $20 again. put your single earring on with one of the studs and people do not wonder if you lost an earring. you can wear it again. you don't have to throw away a single earring >> so can you do this, a big single earring with a little one. >> and it's also a great excuse to part your hair on another side it's great. >> okay. what about this. this looks like charm. >> this is actually may favorite charm bracelet my mother built me when i was younger. it means a lot to me it's too heavy so you can go to a local jeweller, take off some of the charms put them on raining. you can wear them and make them new again. you can put them on a necklace wear it as a necklace. that's how i started my company. wear all the charms in different places you don't have to wear them on a bracelet.

>> what about here >> this is my rule of one. i love when you're getting ready. pick one thing you want to enhance. >> this is sort of like don't overbling. you don't want to wear too much. you don't want to have bracelets and everything on your ears and a necklace on. pick something build. if you want to do a wrist, do a wrist tonight. don't do a giant necklace. >> rule of one is one arm or one neck or one ear? >> or one giant ring try to pick. take accessories don't wear everything in you have at once pick one thing and go with it. >> okay. the last minute or so, we have different outfits. so take off, don't wear a necklace with a halter top or a one shoulder. >> yeah. >> always great to wear beautiful earrings highlight the wrist with no sleeve you can move this to the other finger >> you would just stack it all up >> i love a bear arm and dressing it up this is great. i'm going to come around take the earrings off. >> yeah. >> and you have a much cleaner statement with the kurt will neck just wear a choker and a beautiful ring and you got a great statement and people

aren't wondering where to look gorgeous >> it really does add something. >> it does >> if you wear a turtleneck, people think no necklace pt. >> less is more. >> like this beautiful top these are trending they're great. but if you wear the headband, don't wear earrings. the halter top elongates her neck. >> it is true. sometimes less is more it makes more impact i like that headband i'm going to put it right on. >> they're great but if you wear the headband, try to take something off. they're great. they're amazing. >> instead of a crown. ladies, thank you so much. jennifer fisher, thank you so much hoda, over to you. >> so excited. okay, jamie lee curtis is going to fix my necklace she's going to talk about her new movie, it's a murder mystery. thank you. but first this is "today" on nbc. >> this is wt we do.ha

for de for decades, fans have known jamie lee curtis for the scream queen in her roles in horror films but she is trading in the fright for mystery and in a new movie out called "knives out." a renowned author is found dead one day after his 85th birthday, everybody becomes a suspect, including his family >> we're very sorry for your loss >> thank you that means a lot >> and you and your husband richard work in a real estate firm in boston >> no, it's my company >> right right. sorry.

>> i built my business from the ground up. >> oh, just like your father you two were very close. >> we had our secret way of communicating. you had to find that with dad. you'd find a game to play with him and if you did that, and you played by his rules -- >> you took this role without even blinking. >> you know what apparently anything with a knife i take the job >> what was it that made you say yes? >> obviously, it is a fantastic, fun, super interesting holiday movie. and it was written beautifully and the truth of the matter is they told me that daniel craig was going to play the lead character and i said okay. yeah i'll come to boston and make a movie with y'all >> and don johnson is in the movie. >> don johnson, michael shannon, daniel, and the brilliant young actress who is at the center of the movie. there this beating heart of an immigrant. a perfect movie for this holiday. there is plenty of red meat, plenty of blue meat. we throw it at each other and in the middle is something very

important which is love. >> so is it a family movie can you take your kids >> it's not for little kids because it deals with death. and, you know, obviously that would be inappropriate double digits on up have raily good time. it's super, super, super fun at a time when things are not so fun all around the world i was reading an article about new variety. i was struck by it it was so honest and true and real and you were talking about your addiction. >> yeah. >> and it was very powerful. a couple -- i found so much of it powerful. one was a moment in your life where everything looked like it was perfect. you were winning awards, writing books, house was neat, you were married. life was perfect on the outside. but in your hand, you had a fistful of painkillers. >> a friend of mine who is it a healer, a brazilian woman i knew for a long time was standing behind me and as i put a handful

of pain killers in my mouth with a glass of wine as i was beginning the evening routine of making dinner and the kid's dinners and whatever, from behind me i heard her say, you know -- hard to say it without an accent which i'm not going to do she said, you know, i see you with your little pills, jamie. and you think you're so alive and you think you're so fabulous but you're not you're dead. you're a dead woman. and that was the really the beginning of me understanding. that was in december of '99. and then in january of '99, a wonderful writer in "esquire" magazine wrote an article about his love affair have vicaden and his addiction. the combination of my friend seeing me and tom writing that article bravely outing himself

is the reason i got sober which is the reason why when variety said to me we're going to do an issue annually about addiction in showbiz and we would like for you to be the cover girl he simply because tom did it for me in 1999. >> you had the secret where you were worried when you let your secret out back -- even then, that you would lose jobs >> of course >> you were on commercials >> but that was a big fear >> any secret is fearful and there's a recovery phrase that says you're only as sick as your secrets and the truth is, today, hoda, i can look in the mirror and when i look in the mirror, i'm looking at the problem but i'm also looking at the solution and the buck stops with me and in a family of generational addiction, i can tell you today that the buck stops with me. and in that cycle of addiction in a family that's destroyed generation upon generation of families, i'm proud to say, so far, today -- it's early right? i am going to arrest my addiction on national television and can i take one second and tell you, i think you should run for president. i think you embody the absolute bestfamilies, i'm proud to say,

far, today -- it's early. right? i because you have little babies at home. and you suit up and show up in this incredibly grounded way that makes people feel safe. it's the reason they tune you in i just think you're an extraordinary example for all of us and i wish you were running because i wish you were the president. >> sorryover to you. >> oprah 2020, here is hoda 2020. coming up, we have martha just saying. that's how i feel.

>> thanks for coming by. >> god bless you >> thank you "knives out" premiers next week. over to you. >> oprah 2020, here is hoda 2020 coming up, we have martha

this is so timely. welcome back. if you're in a panic like i am, you have one week this is so timely. welcome back if you're in a panic like i am, you have one week to go until thanksgiving you turn to martha stewart you can find them in the november issue of "martha stewart living." thank you for being here >> thank you. >> this is simple things to make the turkey delicious >> i can not stand a dry turkey. >> you want a turkey that looks brown and beautiful and just like this. and so, the easiest way to do it is start roasting it hot

>> okay. >> and in a pan like this on a rack >> a chardonnay? >> whatever you drink is what you cook with. >> if we don't have a cheese cloth? >> do you have a t-shirt on? it works really well as long as it's real cotton. don't use a synthetic. that will be draped over the turkey and it's a little messy to do that >> you are roast it and you take the cheese cloth off and this is what comes off look, that is what the cheese ns what comes off. cloth looks like but underneath, that's what you have, the most gorgeous turkey . the other way >> i'm doing this. >> yep the other way that i find saves a lot of time and if you're have only one oven and have to make your pies and sides and your

turkey, spatch cocking >> what does that mean >> no, that means to dispatch the cock >> you didn't see that coming. >> suddenly, i'm not hungry. martha stewart, ladies and gentlemen. >> you cut out the backbone. no, you want to know the idioms. >> i didn't ask. you told me. i didn't want to know that >> everybody always asks, what does it mean >> so literal. >> you cut out the backbone. and then you roast it. you start about 350 degrees. it cooks in a quarter of the time of a stuffed turkey can you put stuffing under it. keep basting it with some melted butter and that same white wine and butter. >> two options, one more minute left. >> this is my mother's mashed potatoes gold -- use yukon gold potatoes. the secret is hot milk and cream

cheese >> i knew it >> cream cheese. the most delicious mashed potatoes that's what they look like >> look at the butter. >> do we have time i want to get to the pie >> the pie is -- if you don't like to make pot frise, buy phylo. five spice powder and sugar. fold it in half. >> you are going to cook does someone cook for you? >> we're going eat fish. taste the pie. taste the pie. >> i will taste the pie. i'm fasting. i'm fasting. i'm not going to taste the pie

...6, 7, 8 i'm fasting. i'm not going to taste the pie ♪ ♪ ♪ big dreams start with small steps... ...but dedication can get you there. so just start small... start saving. easily set, track and control your goals right from the chase mobile® app. ♪ ♪ chase. make more of what's yours®.

i want to give martha stewart a big thanks for being here. >> we'll get you ready for that road trip to nashville tomorrow. y'all have a good time, okay very good morning to you, it is 8:56, i'm laura garcia. the man accused in a deadly bart train stabbing is expected to appear in court. he staffed a good smamaritan tht tried to step in as he was stealing a sleeping passenger's shoes.

the suspect had been a patient in san leandro hospital and suddenly walked away from the hospital. happening now, chris sanchez talking about concerned bart riders, a link in our home page. pg&e are working to restore power to the few bay area locations without power right now. at one point the utility was looking at a much wider outage area. 150,000 homes and businesses were expected to be impacted. we have been tracking the latest developments online, go to our twitter feed to get yourself up to speed. another up date in an hour.

one of the hottest tickets around, the rising cost for the 49ers and the packers. >> and join us tomorrow morning from 4:30 to 7:00 a.m. >> today on california live, jen

biesty is sharing kitchen secrets. >> and a car with no steering wheel, all happening on california live this morning on nbc bay area. if you have never been to a floor & decor, you have to go to the grand opening. hardwoods, laminates, tile or stone. holy smokes, this place is huge! i'm on a budget and i was able to go to floor & decor, and save a lot of money. you will be blown away by this experience. the pros come here. i come here. if you love your wallet, and you love your home, you have to go. floor & decor. now open in milpitas, off the 880 freeway on north mccarthy blvd.

thnch . good morning to you. welcome to the third hour of "today." craig alongside al roker and dylan drier. when do you decide to do the third hour hf the gang side? >> i haven done it in a while. i don't want to overdue it >> which hand? >> if i'm turned this way, i go this way >> okay, got it. >> you should jump in on this. >> if you look at his instagram, he is always pointing. >> yeah. >> i had had a general manager, my first radio station i eve