continued to try to appeal to the president in foreign policy and national security terms. to that end, ambassador taylor told me that ambassador bolton recommended that he send a first person cable to secretary pompeo indicating the importance of the security assistance. i drafted the cable on ambassador taylor's behalf on august 29th which further attempted to explain the importance of ukraine security assistance to u.s. national security. my clear impression was the security assistance hold was likely intended by the president either as an expression with the ukrainians or as an effort to increase them to do so. on september 5th i took notes as senator johnson meetings in kyiv. although both senators stressed

strong bipartisan congressional support for ukraine, senator johnson cautioned president zelensky that president trump has a negative view of ukraine and t that president zelensky would have a difficult time overcoming it. senator johnson further explained he had been shocked by president trump's negative reaction during an oval office meeting on may 23rd. on september 8th ambassador taylor told me, now they're insisting zelensky commit to the investigation in an interview with cnn, which i took to refer to the three amigos. i was shocked their request was so specific and concrete. while we advise our ukrainian counterparts to follow the rule of law in investigating corruption allegations, thfis ws a demand that president zelensky

commit on a cable news channel to an investigation of president trump's rival. the hold was finally lifted after significant press coverage and expressions of concern about the withholding of security assistance. although we knew the hold was lifted we were still concerned president zelensky had committed in exchange for the lifting to give the requested cnn interview. we had several indications that the interview would occur. the conference in kyiv was held september 14th and cnn's fareed zakaria was one of the moderators. my colleague texted me that sondland said the zelensky interview issedbe today or monday and they plan to announce that a certain investigation that was on hold will progress. sondland's aide did not know if this was decided or if sondland was advocating for it.

apparently he's been discussing this with yermak. on 13th ambassador taylor and i ran into yermak on the way o out of a meeting with president zelensky. mr. yermak did not answer but shrugged in resignation as if to indicate that he had no choice. everybody thought there was going to be an interview and the ukrainians believed they had to do it. the interview ultimately did not occur. september 21 ambassador taylor and i collaborated on input to morrison to brief president trump ahead of a september 25th meeting scheduled with president zelensky in new york on the margins of the u.n. general assembly. the transcript of the july 25th call was released the same day. as of today, i have still not seen the september 25th meeting. as the impeachment inquiry has progressed, i have followed press reports and reviewed the

statements of ambassadors taylor and yovanovitch. based on my ukraine, my recollection is consistent with their testimony. i believe that the relevant facts were therefore being laid out for the american people. however in the last couple weeks i read press reports expressing for the first time that certain senior officials may have been acting without the president's knowledge or freelancing in their dealings with ukraine. at the same time i also read reports noting the lack of firsthand evidenc in the investigation and suggesting that the only evidence being elicited at the hearings was hearsay. i came to realize that i had firsthand knowledge regarding certain events on july 26th that had not otherwise been reported and those events bore on the question of whether the president did have knowledge that those officials were using the levers of diplomatic power to influence the ukrainian president to announce the opening of a criminal investigation against president

trump's political opponent. as at that point that i made the observation to ambassador taylor that the incident i witnessed on july 26th had greater significance, which is what he reported in his testimony last week and is what led to the subpoena for me to appearin con a moment to turn back to ukraine. today, this very day marks exactly six years since throngs of pro western ukrainians spontaneous lly gathered on kyis independence square to launch the revolution of dignity. while the protests began in opposition to a turn towards russia and away from the west, they expanded of 3 months to reject the entire corrupt oppressive system that had been sustained by russian influence in the country. those events were followed by russia's occupation of ukraine's

crimean peninsula and the dambas region, an ensuing war that has cost almost 14,000 lives. despite the russian aggression, over the past five years ukrainians have rebuilt a shattered economy, adhered to a peace process and moved economically and socially closer to the west toward our way of life. earlier this year large majorities of ukrainians again chose a fresh start by voting for a political newcomer as president, replacing 80% of their parliament and endorsing a platform consistent with our democratic values, our reform priorities and our strategic interests. this year's revolution at the ballot box underscores that despite its imperfections ukraine is a genuine and vibrant democracy and example to other post soviet countries and beyond from moscow to hong kong.

how we respond to this historic opportunity will set the trajectory of our relationship with ukraine and will define our willingness to defend our bedrock international principles and our leadership role in the world. ukrainians want to hear a clear and unambiguous reaffirmation that our longstanding bipartisan policy of strong 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 on ukrainian territory against russian aggression. 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 cease fire. i learned overnight that seven more were injured yesterday. as vice president pence said after his meeting with president

zelensky in warsaw, the u.s./ukraine relationship has never been stronger. ukrainians and their new government earnestly want to believe that. ukrainians cherish their bipartisan american support that has sustained their euro atlantic aspirations and they recoil at the thought of playing a role in u.s. domestic politics or elections. at a time of shifting allegiances and rising competitors in the world, we have no better friends than ukraine, a scrap py, unbowed, determined and above all dignified people who are standing up against russian authoritarianism and aggression. they deserve better. we're now at an inflection point in ukraine and it is critical to our national security that we stand in strong support of our ukrainian partners. ukrainians and freedom loving people everywhere are watching the example we set here of democracy and the rule of law.

thank you. >> thank you, mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone? >> is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. >> perfect. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing today as a fact witness as i did during my deposition on october 14th in order to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew and what i know with regard to the subject of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and a moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign

policy expert who has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i will not provide a long narrative statement because i believe that the interest of congress and the american people is best served by allowing you to ask me your questions. i'm happy to expand upon my october 14th deposition testimony in response to your questions today. but before i do so, i'd like to communicate two things. first i'd like to show a little bit about who i am. i'm an american by choice. i became a citizen in 2002. i was born in northeast of england in the same region that george washington's ancestors came from. both my region and my family have deep ties to the united states. my paternal grandfather fought through world war i in the royal field ar till ray surviving

being shot, shelled and gassed before american troops intervened to end the war. during world war ii members of my family fought to free the world from fascism. the men in my father's family were coal miners whose family always struggled with poverty. when my father alfred was 14 he joined his father, brother, uncles and cousins in the coal mines to help put food on the table. when the mines closed my father wanted to immigrate to the united states to work in the coal mines in west virginia and pennsylvania but his mother, my grandmother, had been crippled from hard labor and my father couldn't leave so he stayed in northern england until he died in 2012. my mother still lives in my h loved america. he always wanted someone in the family to make it to the united states.

i began my university studies in 1984. i just learned i went to the same university as my colleague here mr. holmes at st. andrews in scotland. in 1987 i won a place on an academic exchange to the soviet union. i was there for the signing of the treaty and when ronald reagan met gorbachev in moscow. this was a turning point for me. an american professor told me about graduate student scholarships to the united states. i started my advanced studies at harvard. i can say with confidence that this country has offered me opportunities i never would have had in england. i grew up poor with a very distinctive working class accent. in england in the '80s and '90s this would have impeded my professional advancement. this background has never set me back in america. i've built a career as a

nonpartisan nonpolitical national security official focusing on europe and eurasia. i've served under three presidents, under president trump as well as in my former president of national intelligence officer for russia and eur asia under presidents bush and obama. it was because of my background and experience that i was asked to join the national security council in 2017. at the nsc, russia was part of my portfolio but i was also responsible for coordinating u.s. policy for all of western europe, all of eastern europe including ukraine and turkey, along with nato and the european union. i was hired initially by general michael flynn, katie macfarland and general keith kellogg. i started work in april 2017 when general mcmaster was the national security advisor. i and they thought that i could

help them with president trump's stated goal of improving relations with russia while still implementing policies designed to deter russian conduct that threatened the united states including the operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. this relates to the second thing i want to communicate. based on questions and statements i have heard, some of you on this committee appear 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 that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. the unfortunate truth is that russia was the foreign power that systemically attacked our demo tituti i 2016. this is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. it is beyond dispute even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.

the impact of the successful 2016 russian campaign remains evident today. our nation is being torn apart. truth is questioned. our highly professional expert career foreign service is being undermined. u.s. support for ukraine, which continues to face russian aggression, has been politicized. the russian government's goal is to weaken our country, to diminish america's global role and to neutralize a perceived u.s. threat to russian interests. president putin and the russian security services aim to counter u.s. foreign policy objectives in europe including in ukraine where moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance. i say this as a realist. i do not think long-term conflict with russia is desirable or inevitable. i continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. right now russia security

services have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. we are running out of time to stop them. i would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods. as republicans and democrats have agreed for decades, ukraine is a valued partner of the united states and it plays an important role in our national security. as i told the committee last month, i refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an narrative that ukrainian is our adversary and that ukraine not russia attacked us in 2016. these narratives are harmful. president putin and the russian security services operate like a super pac. they deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our political research and false narratives. when we are consumed by partisan ran kor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to

divide each other. i respect the work that this congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities including this inquiry and i'm here to help you to the best of my ability. if the president or anyone else impedes or subverts the national security of the united states in order to further domestic, political or personal interests, that's more than worthy of your attention. but we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm. thank you. >> thank you, doctor hilr. hill. there will be 45 minutes of questions conduct bid ted by th chairman or majority counsel followed by 45 minutes for the ranking member. we'll proceed under the 5-minute rule and every member will have a chance to ask questions.

i now recognize myself for the first round of questions. first of all, thank you both for being here. thank you for testifying. dr. hill, your story reminds me a great deal what we heard from alexander vindman. the few immigrant stories we've heard in the course of these hearings are among the most powerful, i think, i've ever heard. you and colonel vindman and others are the best of this country and you came here by choice and we are so blessed that you did. so welcome. my colleagues too mak some umbr with your opening statement but i think the american people can be forgiven if they have the same impression that russia didn't intervene in our

elections. there's been an effort to take a story here and somehow equate it with the systemic intervention that our intelligence agencies found that russia perpetrated in 2016 through an extensive social media campaign and a hacking and dumping operation. indeed, the report my colleagues gave you that they produced during investigation calls into question the accuracy of intelligence committees finding that russia intervened to help one side, to help donald trump at the expense of hillary clinton. no one in the intelligence community questions that finding, nor does the fbi, nor does the senate bipartisan committee report nor does the report of this committee. the house republican report is an outlier. let me ask you about your concern with that russian narrative, that it wasn't the russians that engaged in interfering in our election in 2016 and of course this was given a boost when president trump in helsinki and president

putin said that he questioned his own intelligence agencies. why are the russians pushing that narrative that it was the ukraine? >> the russians interest frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. one issue i do want to raise and i think this would resonate with our colleagues on the committee from the republican party is that the goal of the russians was really to put whoever became the president by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale under a cloud. so if secretary former first lady former senator clinton had been elected as president, as indeed many expected in the r run-up to the election in 2016, she too would have had major questions about her legitimacy. i think what we're seeing here as a result of all of these narratives is this is exactly what the russian government was hoping for. they seed misinformation, they

seed doubt. they have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate be it president trump or potentially a president clinton, that they would pit one side of our electorate against the other, that they would pit one party against the other. that's why i wanted to make such a strong point at the very beginning, because there were certainly individuals in many other countries who had harsh words for both of the candidates, who had harsh words for many of the candidates during the primaries. we had a lot of people running for president on the republican side. there were many people trying themselves to game the outcome. as you know in the united kingdom, the bookies take bets. you can go to william hill and lay a bet on who you think is going to be the candidate. so the russian government were trying to lay their own bets, but what they wanted to do is give a spread. they wanted to make sure whoever they bet on would also experience some discomfort, that they were beholden to them in some way, that they would create

just the kind of chaos that we th need to be very careful as we discuss these issues not to give them more fodder that they can use against us in 2020. >>uite agree. the russians are equal opportunity meddlers. they'll not only help one side but they'll also seek to sew discord in the united states along ethnic lines, religious lines, geographic lines. but there's also a benefit now isn't there for russia to put the blame on crane, to cast doubt on whether they intervened at all in our election and playmaker it on a u.s. ally as a way of driving a wedge between the u.s. and ukraine, isn't that true? >> that's absolutely the case. you just made the point about u.s. allies. the russians like to put a lot of blame on u.s. allies for incidents they have perpetrated. we saw that recently with the united kingdom and the russian

secret service's attack on mr. skripal and his daughter in england. this falls into a long pattern of deflection and of the russian government trying to pin the blame on someone else. as my colleague mr. holmes has laid out the russians have a particular vested interest in putting ukraine and ukrainians and ukrainian leaders in a very bad light. all of the issues that we started to discuss today and that you on the committee have been deeply involved in began with russia's illegal annexation of the peninsula of crimea from ukraine in 2014. in response in 2015 and all of the different acts of depression that russia has engaged in since, starting a war in the dambas, shooting down russian operatives, the plane mh17 on the dambas, there was a great deal of hostility and malign intent toward ukraine.

and it suits the russian government very much if we are also looking at ukraine as somehow a perpetrator of malign acts against us. >> mr. holmes, i want to ask you a quick couple of questions. as i think is often is the case for people, you know, i was obviously at your deposition. i read your opening testimony. but as you learn more facts, you start to see things in different light even though your opening statement is very much consistent with your opening statement during the deposition. i was struck in particular by something you said on page 10 of your opening statement. while we had advised our ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally investigating 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 rival. ukrainians are pretty sophisticated actors, aren't they? they can recognize hypocrisy when they see it. what does that do to our anti-corruption efforts? >> our longstanding policy is to encourage them to establish and build rule of law institutions that are capable and that are independent and can actually pursue credible allegations. that's our policy. we've been doing that for quite some time with some success. focusing on particular cases including particular cases where there is interest of 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 poroshenko and the reply from mr. yermak was, oh, you mean like you want us to do with the bidens and clintons? they're sophisticated enough to recognize when we're saying do as we say not as we do, are they not? >> yes, sir. >> you also in your testimony -- and i was struck by this anew today -- even after the aid is lifted, ukraine still felt pressure to make these statements. you and ambassador taylor were worried they were going to do it on cnn. you said that ambassador taylor again stressed the importance of staying out of u.s. politics and said he hoped no interview was planned. mr. yermak did not answer but shrugged in resignation, as if to indicate that they had no choice. in short, everyone thought there was going to be an interview and

that the ukrainians believed they had to do it. you're acknowledging, i think, mr. holmes, are you not, that ukraine very much felt pressured to undertake these investigations that rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland and others were demanding? >> yes, sir. although the hold on the security assistance may have been lifted, there were still things they wanted that they weren't getting including a meeting with the president in the oefval office. whether the security hold continued or not ukraine understood the president wanted that and they still wanted important things from the president. i think that continues. i think they're being very careful. they still need us. right now president zelensky is trying to arrange a summit meeting with president putin in the coming weeks, his first face to face meeting with him to try to advance the peace process. he needs our support. he needs president putin to understand that america supports zelensky at the highest levels.

this doesn't end with the lifting of the security assistance hold. ukraine still needs us and as i said still fightingy. >> i would underscore as my colleague did so eloquently, they got caught. that's the reason the aid was finally lifted. mr. goldman. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning to both of you. yesterday we heard testimony from ambassador gordon sondland from the european union who testified that president trump wanted ukraine to announce the investigations into the bidens and burisma and the 2016 elections because they would benefit him politically and that he used the leverage of that white house meeting and the security assistance to pressure president zelensky to do so. dr. hill, you testified, i believe, that in mid june ambassador sondland told you that he was in charge of ukraine policy, is that right? >> that is correct, sir, yes. >> who did he tell him if ukraineli told me it was

understand that ambassador sondland had been given some authority over ukraine policy from the president? >> we understood that he had been told to work with mr. giuliani. >> and did he hold himself out as having direct contact and knowledge of the president's priorities and interests? >> yes, sir. >> mr. holmes, i'm going to go to that july 26th date when you overheard the conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump and i'm going to ask you a little bit about the lead-up to that conversation. before the lunch that you described, you said that you accompanied ambassador sondland, volker and taylor to a meeting with president zelensky, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and you took notes at that meeting?

>> yes, sir. >> and you reviewed those notes before you came here today? >> yes. >> and they were helpful to refresh your coye >> during that meeting, president zelensky said that 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? >> i 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 this set of issues. >> after you read the call, what did you determine to be the sensitive issues? >> the burisma/biden investigation. >> after this meeting with president zelensky, you testified that ambassador sondland had a one on one meeting with yermak, a top aide

to zelensky and that you were prohibited from going into that meeting to take notes, is that right? >> yes. >> yesterday ambassador sondland testified that he probably discussed the investigations with mr. yermak. did ambassador sondland tell you at all what they discussed? >> he did not. >> now, after this meeting with mr. yermak,esibe whe you were sitting at the restaurant? >> yes, sir. the restaurant has sort of glass doors that open onto a terrace. we were at the first tables on the terrace, so immediately outside of the interior of the restaurant. the doors were all wide open. there was tables, a table for four, i recall it being two tables for two pushed together. it was quite a wide table. i was directly across from ambassador sondland. we were close enough that we

could share an appetizer. the two staffers were off to our right at this next table. >> now, you said that 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 restaurant in kyiv? >> yes. >> now, you said that you were able to hear president trump's voice through the receiver. how were you able to hear if it was not on speakerphone? >> several things. it was quite loud when the president came on, quite distinctive. ambassador sondland said he often speaks very loudly over the phone. i certainly experienced that. when the president came on, he sort of winced and held the phone away from his ear like this. and he did that for the first couple exchanges. i don't know if he then turned the volume down, he got used to

it, if the president moderated his volume, i don't know, but that's how i was able to hear it. >> so you were able to hear some of what president trump said to president zelensky, is that right? >> the first portion of the conversation, yes. >> what did you hear president trump say to ambassador sondland? >> what i hear -- >> the president say to ambassador sondland. >> he clarified whether he was in ukraine or not. he said yes, i'm here in ukraine. then ambassador sondland said he loves your ass, will do whatever you want. he said is he going to do the investigation? >> so you heard president trump asked 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. >> afterwards you described a

follow-on conversation that you had with ambassador sondland where you asked him i generally what did president trump think of ukraine, is that right? >> correct. >> what did ambassador sondland say to you? >> he said he doesn't really care about ukraine. >> did he use slightly more kol f colorful language? >> he did. >> what did he say he does care about? >> big stuff. >> did he explain? >> i asked him what kind of big stuff. we have big stuff going on here like a war with russia. he said no, big stuff like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani's pushing. >> now were you familiar with the biden investigation that he referenced at that point? >> yes, sir. >> how do you have such a specific and clear recollection of this conversation with the

president and your conversation with ambassador sondland? >> yeah. so this was a very distinctive experience. i've never seen anything like this 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. it's a very distinctive personality. you all have seen him on television. very colorful language was used. they were directly addressing something that i had been wondering about working on for weeks and even months, a topic that had led to the recall of my former boss, the former ambassador. so here was a person who said he had direct contact with the president, said that over the course of time. here he is actually having that contact with the president, hearing the president's voice and them talking about this issue of the biden investigation that i had been hearing about.

>> so just to summarize, during the phone call that you overheard ambassador sondland have with president trump, you heard president trump himself ask the only question that you really heard him ask, i believe, is whether he was going to do the investigation, to which ambassador sondland responded that he would and that he would, in fact, do anything that president zelensky wants. is that an accurate recitation of what happened? >> that is correct. >> then after that call you had a subsequent conversation with ambassador sondland where he in sum and substance told you that the president doesn't care about ukraine, he only cares about big stuff related to himself and particularly the biden investigation that giuliani was pushing? >> correct. >> now, a day before your lunch with ambassador sondland, president trump did speak with president zelensky, as you

referred. certainly the president made it clear to president zelensky that he cared about the biden investigation. now,neither of you did listen to this call, but as you testified, you both read it subsequent to its publication. dr. hill, you during your time 2 1/2 years in the white house listened to a number of presidential phone calls, is that right? >> that's right. >> can you estimate approximately how many? >> i can't, actually. i mean sometimes there would be multiple calls during a week. i was there for more than two years, so it's a fair number. >> have 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 terms of the testimony -- yes, sir. >> i think that as a threshold matter, i think there are issues of classification regarding head of state communications that we do want to be sensitive to in this forum, among other issues.

>> understood. i'm really just focused on this one call that had been declassified and published and just asking you whether you had ever heard any presidential phone call along these lines. >> again, i'd like to focus on n this testimony on this particular call. i will just say that i found this particular call subject matter and the way it was conducted surprising. >> you said in your deposition testimony that you were very shocked and very saddened to read it. >> that is correct. >> why was that? >> because of the nature of the discussion, the juxtaposition of the issues which were raised and also given the fact that i myself had actually opposed along with ambassador bolton for some period having a call unless member, i left on july 19th. the call took place the it was very well-prepared and we were confident that the issue following week. in the months leading up to that that is the ukraine and the from may onward it became very united states were most generally together interested in clear that the white house were going to be raised. i saw in this call that this was meeting itself was being predicated on other issues, not the case. >> you also testified that you

were concerned that this call namely investigations and the questions about the election was turning a white house interference in 2016. >> mr. holmes, you indicate in meeting into some kind of asset. your opening statement that the do you recall that ca. chief of staff to president zelensky had indicated to you that in this phone call on july 25 t, there was a discussion about personnel issues related to the prosecutor general's office. after you read the call, did you understand who and what that was referring to? >> yes, sir. in that brief meeting with the chief of staff, it was very confusing to me why in only the few minutes we had why that would have been the issue he raised. it wasn't until i read the transcript of the call on the 25th that i understood that the president had specifically mentioned prosecutor general lawsuit sev lutsenko who --

>> i believe you also said that president mr. giuliani's allegations and views, is that right? >> yes, sir. about two weeks before the press kind of wave that we saw target ambassador yovanovitch became public, an embassy contact reported to us privately that mr. lutsenko was sending these messages and had met with an american journalist to try to get those messages out. >> what was the u.s. embassy in ukraine's view of prosecutor general lutsenko? >> he was not a good partner. he had failed to deliver on the promised reforms that he had committed to when he took office, and he was using his office to insulate and protect political allies while presumably enriching himself.

>> another way to describe that, corrupt? >> yes. >> i'm going to take a look at a couple of excerpts from this july 25th call with you. the first one occurs right after president zelensky thanked president trump for the united states' support in the area of defense. president trump immediately then says, i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowdstrike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server. they say ukraine has it. now, dr. hill, is this a reference to this debunked conspiracy theory about ukraine interference in the 2016 election that you discussed in your opening statement as well as with chairman schiff? >> the reference to crowdstrike and the server, yes, that is 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 of president trump's most senior advisors had informed him that this theory of ukraine interference in the 2016 election was false? >> that is correct. >> so is it your understanding then that president trump disregarded the advice of his senior officials about this theory and instead listened to rudy giuliani's views? >> that appears to be the case, yes. >> i also then 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. this is an excerpt from a february 2nd, 2017, news conference with president putin and prime minister orban of hungary. putin says, second, as we all

know during the presidential campaign in the united states the ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate. more than that certain oligarchs certainly with the approval of the political leadership funded this candidate or female candidate to be more precise. mr. holmes, you spent three years as well in the u.s. embassy in russia. why would it be to vladimir putin's advantage to promote this theory of ukraine interference? >> first of all, to deflect from the allegations of russian interference. second of all, to drive a wedge between the united states and ukrainhi russia wants to essentially get back into its sphere of influence. thirdly, to besmirch ukraine and its political leadership to degrade and erode support of ukraine from other key partners in europe and elsewhere. >> dr. hill, by promoting this 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 very careful about the way that we phrase that. this is a view that president putin and the russian security services and many actors in russia have promoted, but i think this view has also got some traction perhaps in parallel and separately here 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 also then met in mid may with prime minister orban who had joined president putin at this preference? >> that is correct. >> now, that happened in between the time when president zelensky was elected on april 21st and his inauguration on may 20th, is that right?

>> correct. >> and in fact, isn't it true that president trump had asked vice president pence to attend the inauguration after his phone call with president zelensky on april 21st? >> i'm not sure that i can say that president trump had asked vice president pence. i was not in any meeting in which that took place. i can say that i myself and many others at the nsc and the state department were quite keen, very eager to have vice president pence go to ukraine to represent the united states' government and the president. >> is that also your recollection, mr. holmes, that you wanted vice president pence to attend? >> yes, sir. we understood that that was the plan. >> now, jennifer williams from the office of the vice president testified here that on may 13th, which is 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 that period this was a lot of publicity and i think mr. holmes you referenced this as well, about rudy giuliani's interest in these investigations in ukraine. >> i was certainly aware, yes. >> and the -- around this time, dr. hill, you also, i believe, testified that ambassador bolton had expressed some views to you about mr. giuliani's interest in ukraine. do you recall what you said? >> yes. >> what he said to you rather? >> i do recall, yes. it was part of a conversation about the things that mr. giuliani was saying very frequently in public. we saw them often or saw him often on television making these

statements. and i had already brought to ambassador bolton's attention the attacks, the smear campaign against ambassador yovanovitch 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'd asked if there was anything that we could do about it. ambassador bolton looked pained and basically indicated with body language that there was nothing much that we could do about it. he then in the course of that discussion said rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. >> did you understand what he meant by that? >> i did, actually. >> what did he mean? >> he meant that obviously what mr. giuliani was saying was pretty explosive in any case and he was frequently on television making quite incendiary remarks about everyone involved in this and that he was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would, you know, probably

come back to hauntd u us. in fact, i think that's where we are today. >> mr. holmes, did the ukrainians understand that rudy giuliani represented 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 this portion of the inquiry because she was removed following this media campaign in which rudy giuliani and his associates were very prominent in criticizing her for not taking seriously some of the theories and issues that later came up. so when she was removed, commentators in ukraine believed that lutsenko working with giuliani had succeeded in getting her removed. they were already aware of giuliani and his influence, the issues that he was promoting and

ultimately that he was able to get an ambassador removed partly because of that. so he was someone to contend with. then in addition immediately after the inauguration, he began reaching out to the zelensky administration, key figures in the zelensky administration and continued to do that. >> let's focus on the inauguration for a minute. you escorted for lack of a better word the u.s. delegation around? >> i joined them in some of their meetings, but not for the entire day. >> who was on the official delegation? >> it was five people. so it was the head of the delegation was secretary perry. then it was ambassador volker representing the state department, ambassador sondland, joseph pennington and alex vindman representing the white house. >> did the delegation have a meeting with president zelensky that you attended? >> yes. >> you testified, i think, in your previously that secretary perry gave a list of some sort

to president zelensky at that meeting. do you recall that? >> yes. in the meeting with the president, secretary perry is the head of the delegation, opened the meeting for the american side and had a number of points he made. 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 list of trusted individuals and recommended that president zelensky could draw from that list for advice on energy sector reform issues. >> do you know who was on that list? >> i didn't see the list. i don't know. other colleagues -- there are other people who have been in the mix for a while on that set of issues, other people secretary perry has mentioned as being people to consult on reform. >> are they americans? >> yes. >> now do you also recall that colonel vindman spoke to president zelensky in that

meeting? >> yes. >> what did he say to president zelensky in terms of some of the issues that we're addressing here in this investigation? >> yes, sir. he was the last to speak. he made a general point about the importance of ukraine to our national security, and he said it's very important that the zelensky administration stay out of u.s. domestic politics. >> was it your understanding that president zelensky and the ukrainians were already starting to feel some pressure to conduct these political investigations? >> yes. >> and those were the ones related to biden and burisma and the 2016 election? >> correct. >> now, dr. hill, you also testified that around this same time in may you learned that president trump was receiving information from someone else at the national security council, is that right? >> that's not quite right. i was told in passing that someone else at the national security council that the president may want to speak to

them because of some materials related to ukraine. >> and did that person indicate that the president thought that was the director of ukraine? >> that is correct. it was a very brief conversation, just to be clear. >> who is the director of ukraine. >> director for ukraine is alex vindman, colonel vindman. >> who did this individual in the secretary's office refer to? >> the individual just said the name cash. >> did you know who that was? >> initially when i was thinking about it i had to search my mind. the only cash i knew at the national security council was cash patel. >> cash patel did not work on ukraine matters that you over saw is that right? >> not that i over saw, no. >> the indication is cash patel provided some information to the president without your knowledge? >> that seemed to be the indication. >> i want to go back to the july 25th call rht now where president trump in another excerpt asks president zelensky

about his potential political opponent, vice president joe biden. in this excerpt, the president said the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. now, dr. hill, this was of course one of the allegations that rudy giuliani was pushing, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and now confirmed in this july 25th call that the president was also interested in it? >> yes. >> ambassadors volker and sondland have tried to draw a distinction between their understanding of the connection between burisma and the bidens. but, dr. hill, was it apparent to you when president trump, rudy giuliani or anyone else was pushing for an investion into burisma, that the reason

why they wanted that investigation related to what president trump said here, the bidens? >> it was very apparent to me that that was what rudy giuliani intended, yes, intended to convey that burisma was linked to the bidens, and he said this publicly repeatedly. >> you understood that burisma was code for the bidens? >> yes. >> do you think that anyone involved in ukraine matters in the spring and summer would understand that as well? >> yes. >> now, dr. hill, are you aware of any evidence to support the allegations against vice president biden? >> i'm not, no. >> in fact, mr. holmes, the former prosecutor general of ukraine who vice president biden encouraged to fire was actual l corrupt, is that right? >> correct. >> and was not pursuing corruption investigations and

prosecutions, right? >> my understanding is the prosecutor general at the time was not at that time pursuing investigations of burisma or the bidens. >> in fact, removing that corrupt prosecutor general was part of the united states' anti-corruption policy, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. not just us, but all of our a y allies and other institutions involved in ukraine at the time. >> dr. hill, you indicated earlier that you had understood that a white house meeting was conditioned on the pursuit by ukraine of these investigations. i want to focus on the july 10th meeting in the white house where that came to light. you indicated that in your testimony that there was a large meeting that ambassador bolton ran where ambassadors sondland, volker and secretary perry also attended? >> that is correct, yes. >> why were they included in that meeting with two ukrainian

officials about national security matters? >> well, the initial intent had not been to include them. we anticipated that the two ukrainian fiofficials would hava number of meetings as is usually the procedure. then there was a request to have ambassadors sondland and volker included coming directly from their offices. as a result of that, clearly given the important role that secretary perry was playing in the energy sector reform in ukraine and the fact that he'd also been ithegatio to the we tde all three of them. >> toward the end of this meeting, the ukrainians raised their ongoing desire for an oval office meeting, is that right? >> that is correct. >> what happened after they did that? >> well, i listened very carefully to ambassador sondland's testimony yesterday, so i want to actually point out

something where i think it's easy to explain why he had a different interpretation of how this came into being. the meeting had initially been scheduled for about 45 minutes to an hour. it was definitely in the wrap-up phase of the meeting when this occurred. we'd gone through a series of discussions. alexander danyluk really wanted to get into the weeds of how you might reform a national security council. he talked to me about this prior to the meeting. he was hoping and had had this opportunity with the national security advisor of the united states to get his firsthand opinions and thoughts on what might happen. we'd also wanted to go through a discussion about how important it was for ukraine to get its energy sector reform underway and clearly secretary perry had some talking points to this. this is an issue that ambassador bolton was also interested in. we knew that the ukrainians

would have on their agenda the question about a meeting. so as we get through the main discussion, we're going into that wrap-up phase. the ukrainians, mr. danyluk starts to ask about a white house meeting and ambassador bolton was trying to parry this back. although he's the national security advisor, he's not in charge of scheduling the meeting. this goes through a whole process. it's not ambassador bolton's role to start pulling out the schedule and say we're going to see if this tuesday and this month is going to work. he does not like to discuss the details of these meetings. he likes to leave them to the appropriate staff for this. this was already going to be an uncomfortable issue. as ambassador bolton was trying to move that part of the discussion away, i think he was going to try to deflect it onto another wrap-up topic. ambassador sondland leaned in to

say we have an agreement there will be a meeting if specific investigations are put underway. that's when i saw ambassador bolton stiffen. i was sitting behind him in the chair and i saw him sit back slightly like this. he'd been more moving forward like i am to the table. for me, that was unmistakable body language and it caught my attention. then he looked up to the clock or at his watch, or toward his wrist and basically said, it's been really great to see you. i'm afraid i've got another meeting. >> 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. >> what did he say later? >> later he said he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney in return for investigations this meeting would get scheduled. >> was he specific at that point later about the investigations

with ambassador bolton after meeting with ambassador i had a conversation in his office, a brief one, and then a subsequent meeting. >> after both meetings when you relied to him what ambassador sondland said, what did he relay to you? >> i want to highlight first of all ambassador bolton wanted me to hold back in the room after the meeting. i was sitting on the so tpau with a colleague -- >> just in that second meeting, what d say? >> he was making a strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said. when i came back and related it to him he had strong instruction for me and i am presuming -- >> what was that? >> the specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers to john eisenberg, and i was

senior counsel for the national security counsel and to basically say you tell eisenberg i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland cooked up. i took that to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go and speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> you relays everything you just told us -- >> precisely. and more the details of how the meeting unfolded, which i gave a full description of this in my october 14th deposition. >> you testified by late august you had a clear impression that the security assistance, how did you make -- how did you reach

that clear conclusion? >> president zielinski received a letter from president trump in may, and we had not been able to get that meeting and then the security hold came up with no explanation and i would be surprised if any of the ukrainians said, we discussed earlier sophisticated people, when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place they would have drawn that conclusion? >> because the hold was still remaining without explanation? >> correct. >> this was the only logical conclusion you could reach? >> correct. >> sort of like two plus two equals four? >> exactly.

>> i yield. >> we are expected to have votes, i think, fairly soon. this will be an appropriate time to break and we will resume with the minority in 45 minutes. if people before they leave could allow the witnesses to leave first, and if committee members could come back promptly after votes. >> a quick break in the testimony as congress continues with some of the other work, a vote, votes there on capitol hill after we have just heard a white house russia analyst sternly warn some of the republican lawmakers to quit pushing a fictional narrative that ukraine and not russia was responsible for the interference in the 2016 election. there were also a number of expletives repeated in the testimony this morning as david holmes, who is a career foreign

service office recounted conversations with ambassador sondland he overheard on a phone call with president trump. i want to bring in the moderator of "face the nation." the key headlines from what we heard this morning? >> fiona hill opened up with this is a matter of national security and really trying to put a exclamation point on here. it was key testimony from her that she heard ambassador sondland while at the white house convey this deal -- proposed deal and he had been relaying it by working with the chief of staff, mulvaney. she repeated what we already heard about concern from the top levels that the rudy guiliani and the deal he was cooking up was acting like a hand grenade that was going to blow them all

up. holmes also conveying he overheard the president of the united states, it was an unmistakable and extremely loud the phone call he heard where ambassador sondland and the president were talking about investigations, specifically into the bidens. >> the other thing we heard from fiona hill who pointed out she's a nonpartisan, not political intelligence in analyst, she said vladimir putin and the services operate like a super pac. she seemed deeply concerned about how this entire scenario is strengthening russia's hand because ukraine needs strong u.s. support. >> she basically is saying you are getting played, republicans who are repeating some of the propaganda that the russian government continues to push, which is that they, themselves, are not guilty of meddling in

2016. even the president continues to repeat that despite his national security team telling him that it's unmistakable and it's fact vladimir putin was behind the election meddling, and she's trying to pop some of the bubbles to draw us back to her point, where the national security officials were looking at a conspiracy theory and something that was beneficial to the president, and the president and his cabinet members continue to push back on the testimony. >> we are joined by our legal a team here. >> the two amigos. >> each of you, as you watch this temp we have had now for two weeks, all of the witnesses, at least saying they found that that call between president trump and the leader of ukraine was unusual, and some have gone further and said it was

inappropriate or they were shocked when they read the details of it. what becomes something that is impeachable? >> first of all, i thought the great takeaway this morning where the democrats gained the most ground is when holmes related how he was in a meeting shortly after the call between trump and zielinski, the ukrainian president and zielinski made reference to three things the president asked for. that's actually fairly critical, because part of the narrative on the republican side is that they didn't understand that there was a quid pro quo and this was a request but is part of the sort of give and take of heads of ate. holmes conveyed it differently. holmes suggested zielinski was saying i need to deal with this, which is a deliverable language that we heard from other witnesses. that is a good point for the democrats, a very significant one. >> on that question, then, kim, is holmes' testimony enough to

tie the president to this suggestion about the deliver rawable? >> it's difficult that there was a campaign by rudy guiliani to former corrupt prosecutors, and talk about corruption to undermine the ukrainian's objective to enforce or strengthen democracy in ukraine and that narrative actually operated for the benefit of vladimir putin, so the president, i think, the story here is the president was acting against the interest of the united states. the question, i think, being answered today in part is why should we care? these two witnesses are making the case, as you mentioned, particularly fiona hill. this is a longer story and reaches back to the mueller investigation. it's happening as we speak. mueller said this. we have the russians interfering in the electoral process and we have a lot of people in this country that care about

immigration and care about people crossing the border and we are having people cross the border into the electoral process and this should be protected by the republicans in congress. >> that's right. you also heard david holmes describe this is what the russian government was hoping for and fiona hill said the same thing, the kind of discord and chaos and the kind of facts don't matter pick your party and stay tribal, which is the political play when you are trying to count votes and prevent an impeachment or get one to go ahead and that's why the narrative comes back time and time again, vote your party and not the fact pattern. >> i think this is part of the reason this is going to get hot as soon as we get back into the hearing, is that the republicans are pushing back and saying, look, we have stated publicly, we issued reports saying we believe the russians hacked the election, that they were this critical role, and they are suggesting hill has been unfair

in her criticism that they are being played by the russians. >> nunez did say it could be other countries. >> yeah, we think the ukrainians also tried to interfere and there's -- >> there's no proof of that. >> well, there is proof that some of the sources used for the steel dossier were some of these ukian cis, andy furus that they been denying the russians intervened. >> what you will hear if you read hill's deposition, she believes the dossier is part of a russian -- >> i think it's important to keep in mind these are career politicians, and they are saying this is my expertise and this is the fact. >> we will hear more about the

role of rudy guiliani in all of this and the deep concern about his involvement. for some of you, our coverage will continue with our 24 streaming network, cbsn. we will will be back with the questioning from the republican side as soon as the hearing resumes. this has been a cbs news special report. i am norah'donnell, cbs news, washington. mucix lasts 12 hours, so i'm good. now move- kim nooooooo! only mucinex has a patented tablet that lasts 3x longer, for 12 hours. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers?

try listerine® ready! tabs™. audrey's on it. eating right and staying active? on it! audrey thinks she's doing all she can to manage her type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is her treatment doing enough to lower her heart risk? [sfx: crash of football players colliding off-camera.] maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast ory trt inct, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. on it...with jardiance.

ask your doctor about jardiance. friends & family sale on it...with jardiance. take an extra 25% off! save on family jammies... women's sweaters - $22.50 and under... and kitchen electrics. plus - snap a free picture with santa this sunday!... you'll find new gifts at every turn - this holiday at kohl's.

but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium.

♪ will to hanks plays mr. rogers in the highly anticipated neighborhood the academy award-winning actor says he initially turned down the part, but director marielle heller changed his mind. she's known for the movies "the diary of a teenage girl" and the oscar nominated "can you ever forgive me." gayle spoke to hanks about the movie and how heller convinced him to take the role. >> here we are. this is our first day on our "neighborhood" set. that's tom hanks. >> i love how you and the director meet and how this collab filmmakers. and i had head it and literally 24 hours before i went to this birthday party for my grandkids. and i said, oh, oh -- we were chit chatting, blah, blah, blah. i'm a director. oh, i read this interesting article in "the new york times" about female directors. have you seen it? and she look ad me and said,

"i'm in it." i said -- "please, let me remove my shoe from my mouth." so i chatted with her there, and i had heard about her film "diary of a teenage girl." so i immediately took a look and said this lady's going places. >> you said "i want to work with her." >> when she attached herself to "a beautiful day in the neighborhood," and after one read and a quick phone call with her i said, "this is only just a matter of when we can do it." w obvious -- the look. are we going to do teeth? i don't have the same nose. what are we -- she said, you'll have a wig, and we'll do something with your eyebrows. so the rest is about you embodying the pulse, the heartbeat, the sensibility. the motivations of why fred rogers commanded a room in the way that he did. ♪ it's a beautiful day in this

neighborhood ♪ >> hi, neighbor. >> hi, neighbor. i'm calming down -- >> right away. yes. i remember that feeling. it's interesting when you play someone, a real person, and to what degree do you try to actually look like them or just -- as he said, embody them, which is really what's successful. >> interesting. you radiate his kind of being. you don't look like him, but you are him. >> the vibe. the vibe. we'll have more of gayle's conversation with tom hanks tomorrow on "cbs this morning." why the oscar-winning actor says playing the part was terrifying. >> looking forward to it. millennials may be moving into your neighborhood. they might not be buying many homes. >> not buying. not buying it. >> jill schlesinger is in the toyota green room to explain why. >> why, why? you're watching "cbs this morning." ♪

♪ every day it's getting closer ♪ ♪ going faster than a roller coaster ♪

♪ a l...doesn't mean wyou got to spend a lot! because denny's brought back the super slam™. with eggs, hash browns, bacon, sausage and pancakes. all for just $6.99. the $6.99 super slam™ is back! see you at denny's!

a new survey finds nearly nine million millennials expect to be permanent renters. that's up more than a million people from a year ago. nearly half of millennial renters say they have not saved a dime for a down payment to buy a home. cbs news business financial analyst jill schlesinger is here to explain why and what this means for the housing market. what is the biggest hurdle, what are the biggest hurdles that you see facing millennials when it comes to homeownership? >> we used to say, oh, they're different from us, different generation. actually, it's an old-school thing. they want to buy homes, but the homes they're seeking are not affordable. >> yeah. >> many of them don't have high enough pay. they are burdened with so much student loan debt. $1.6 trillion outstanding of student loan debt. so lack of affordability. this debt, you can understand why some really feel locked out of the housing market. >> why are there fewer affordable homes on the market now?

>> yeah. this is a very interesting thing. after the financial crisis, what we know is there was a ton of homes out there, right, a lot of foreclosed homes. well, a bunch of investors in private equity firms gobbled up the inventory. they took the homes off the market, and they turned them into rentals which is what people wanted. but those homes actually have remained permanently offer the market. we also know that many older americans are actually what they're calling aging in place. they're not moving out of their big house where they raised their families. they're sticking around. last year, we have a statistic just out yesterday from the census bureau where we have 9.8% of americans moving. that is the lowest level of people moving since 1947. >> wow. >> homes are just not abundant right now. >> meanwhile, many millennials are moving from the country to the city looking for places to city. ther't why e parcular big cits especially difficult? >> this is obvious with the coasts. we know that there are tons of people flocking to places like new york and san francisco.

and in those -- and l.a. in those areas webut sf theost strange thing i guess, the cities that pop up on the list where people say i really don't think i'm ever going to own, detroit and st. louis, also on that list. and so when you look -- san jose, san francisco, new york and l.a., that makes sense. detroit, st. louis, and portland, oregon, maybe not as much. and i think this has a lot to do with people just not making enough money, that lack of affordability. >> where's the tipping points when you know whether it's better to rent or buy? >> you've got to run the numbers. look, you may be a millennial in detroit and be able to afford to own a home. but you do have to start with what can i afford. and not just how much is this mortgage, the principal, the interest, and the taxes, but also what about the upkeep of a home. 1% to 1% of the purchase price -- 1% to 3% of the purchase rice every year.

>> i'm a renter but would love to buy a home right now. when you look at that number, 20% for the down payment -- is that always the case? if you don't have the 20%, should you not be looking? >> no. i'll give you the good news/bad news. the good news is if you have a steady job, you probably can get away with putting down less than 20%, but you will be paying private mortgage insurance. that's from .3% to over 1% of the total loan value. and that means that you really have this extra part of your payment. you also have to be very careful. you've got to monitor the rules of your particular private mortgage insurance because as soon as you get to 80% equity, you want to go back to the lender and say, hey, lift that pmi off my loan amount so i can actually have freer cash flow. look, buying and renting, there really is a distinction also in terms of flexibility of being a renter, opportunity. but we know that people like to nest. we don't want to turn our -- i don't want to say that buying's a terrible deal. i think that many people, you should be comfortable renting

until it feels okay for you financially. >> yeah. big climate change, though, in the way people live. >> absolutely. >> jill schlesinger. thank you so much. this year, somali american model halima aden became the first model to wear a hijab in the "sports illustrated" swimsuit issue. the trailblazer is in our toyota green room with why her new project has a personal connection to her childhood. your local news is next. this is a kpix5 news morning update. >> good the roadways. a busy drive as you work your way around the bay and an early morning traffic alert. as you head in and out of ped lew ma this morning, look out for a trouble spot on 101 as yeah work your way on that northbound side. a lane is blocked for a crash. you have delays in both

directions through there. south of there through the golden gate bridge, things are getting busy into san francisco. your drive times across the san mateo bridge as well. it is improving though because we did have foot accident. that accident, but that is long gone. >> give yourself 45 minutes. metering lights remain on. >> plenty of sunshine for today. calmer, quieter weather. looking at a beautiful afternoon ahead with seasonal daytime highs. here is a live look with the treasure island camera. in the 40s and in the 50s. it is a chilly start, 40 in santa rosa. 45 right now in concord. 56 in san francisco. mid-50s for oakland. as we head through the day, we're looking at in per 50s along the coast. low to mid 60s for the bay. for those daytime highs. inland in the mid- to upper

60s. for concord, 65. 65 for san jose for a daytime high. 63 in oakland and for san francisco. we'll keep this going for the next several days with the next chance of rain late tuesday into wednesday. there are those who will say that you're:

too fat. too skinny. too hard. too soft. too old. too much. too unexpected. too limited. and to them we say too bad. because at kaiser permanente,

we believe that everyone deserves the right to thrive. welcome back to "cbs this morning." it's time to bring you some of the stories that are the "talk of the table" this morning. this, of course, is where we each pick a story to share with each other and with all of you. jericka's going to start it off. >> that's right. as the world becomes increasingly more concerned about the environment, one fast food chain is rethinking what it offers the children's meals. next month toys that come along with meals at burger king restaurants in britain will be melted down and turned into playground equipment in plastic trays. it is part of a growing public

backlash against single-use disposable plastic items piling up in landfills, littering beaches and oceans. some environmental experts say it's not clear whether eliminating plastic toys would make a big dent in tader problem of pollution. a company executive says they will gradually replace plastic toys with digital alternatives -- >> digital alternatives? >> i'm thinking like an app or something. >> okay. even if you don't care about the environment and even if the experts are right and it won't make a dent, it will make a dent in the clutter in my house. it the threat of sitting on a plastic toy. >> yes. collected a lot in my house. certain moments on road trips, they came in handy. >> i think, too, teaching children that idea of recycling or just trying to help the environment is also good. >> yeah. >> we have a lot of action figures from those. all right. i've got a story about a dictionary word. this is interesting. oxford dictionary's revealed its 2019 word of the year. a little bit of background. i'll tell you the word, it's climate emergency.

a phrase. >> yeah. >> it's defined as a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change. so usage of the phrase surged 100 fold in 2019 compared to previous years. oxford says that the word of the year is intended to highlight a culturally significant word or expression that will have a lasting impact on the culture. so it's not just a thing that is cool or hip or a trend that's going to go away like snap omethi we' be tag about for a l. >> a climate emergency. >> the number-one reference was climate emergency over health emergency. >> wow. >> interesting. >> yeah. here's mine -- a sequel to the hit movie "joker" is reportedly in the works. according to the "hollywood reporter," the director of "joker" todd phillips, is in talks with warner bros. to direct a second "joker" film. "joker" is the first r-lated movie to mak a comment but did not immediately hear back. here's the thing -- the budget

for "joker" was $60 million. it's made a billion dollars. they're expecting the profit in the end to be $500 million. of that the director is said to be taking home a payday about $100 million. i could see why he'd sign up for another -- >> wow. mom, d>>ah.s this morning," we are revealing a trailblazing model's new project off the runway. somali american model halima aden made history when she wore a burkini and hijab during the miss minnesota usao the first hijab-wearing model to sign with img models. the unicef ambassador has walked in runway shows around the world and graced the covers of top fashion magazines like "vogue arabia," "allure," and "elle."

she became the first model to wear a hijab and burkini. she is producer of "i am you." the story of the journal is personal to aden who was a refugee herself as a child. the director explains in the exclusive behind-the-scenes clip. >> i am you is a story of an afghan boy who is madly in love with a young afghan girl. and in the tragic way, his family gets taken over by the isis. and his father getsnt of eyes. and he takes his father's journey to live through five countries, to arrive in germany. >> halima aden, welcome. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> congratulations on this project. what attracted you to this refugee story? >> okay. so i met sonya, the filmmaker,

last summer at a unikref gacef . after she congratulates me, tells me about "i am you." immediately i'm like, i'm hooked, i'm obsessed. what can i do? she brought me on to executive produce. >> wow. did it in any way change or deepen your understanding of your own story? >> it did. you know, i was a child refugee, but i was born and raised in kakuma. because it was a u.n. hdr camp, all i knew was life in the camp. it was a very protected childhood. >> yeah. >> so i got to learn a lot through sonya and through watching the film because the journey that -- the journey that the main characters have to take is a dangerous one. it's so heartbreaking, and it really prof provokes empathy for what they had to go through just to survive. >> you talk about not being afraid to be the first. and you said that the experiences that you've had have shaped you in terms of where you are in giving back, being a unicef ambassador. is this where you saw yourself years ago?

did you see this for yourself? >> no. i never in a million years could have thought at 22 i would get to executive produce a film. and much less a movie that is so close to my own personal background. so this is all incredible. i'm just so grateful to sonya. you know, she went to all five countries. i wasn't involved in the filmmaking part, i came on post production. but you know, i heard so much from her and learned so much through that experience. you know, as a woman, getting to go to five countries, afghanistan, greece, turkey, germany, iran, and she is in charge of a crew of men. so i just -- this has been incredible. in over 190 countries.ssador. what does it mean to you? what exactly are you doing? >> yeah. part of this was, you know, yesterday was world children's day. and i was at the u.n. and today i really wanted to announce this partnership because i think it's another opportunity to show refugees are humans. just like anybody else. so we should give them empathy.

we should give them heart. the journeys that a lot of us have to take is not an easy one. at the end of the day, even in this movie, it's called "i am you" because we can reflect in these characters, they are us. at the end of the day we all bleed the same, we all hurt the same, we all want the same things in life. for me especially i wanted to be part of a project where people get to see that, you know, people are not leaving their countries just for a better life or a better opportunity or to be closer to, you know, family or friends, they're literally being forced from their homes. and we're living in a team where it's the largest refugee crisis since world war ii. every two seconds a person is displaced from their home due to violence, due to disease, due to famine. it's very, very important that we are highlighting stories like the film "i am you." >> we mentioned that you were in the "sports illustrated" swimsuit issue. the first to wear a hijab and burkini. >> i don't know how to swim so

that was -- i've been -- ironic to be it's "sports illustrated" swim -- >> how did they approach you about that? >> i competed in miss minnesota usa in 2016 wearing a hijab and burkini. and you don't have to change. if a woman feels beautiful and confident in a two piece, one piece, bikini, that's amazing. feel comfortable in the burkini. >> you posted a picture with a caption as a child with -- saying "the hijab is not going anywhe anywhere," and you ask people to see you as that, what prompted that post? go f >> for me, my career has grown so much. the people who follow me there's a fear, okay, is she going to stray from the hijab. it was a reminder the hijab is not going away not today, not tomorrow, not ever. you don't have to worry about me switching up. >> there was a time where you did take it off. you said i listened to something, you did a ted talk. >> when i was little -- >> you were under the pressure

as a young person. something within you said i'm not changing. from that moment forward -- >> yeah. >> you've stayed authentic to who you are. >> i think we should all be ourselves. that is the only way to be. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you so much for having me. >> good luck on your travels. >> thank you. ahead, we show you how a blacksmith fort in virginia is providing a safe haven for veterans the day clear skies and chilly conditions. cold especially for the north bay an our inland valleys. through the afternoon, we are going to see plenty of sunshine with seasonal daytime highs. mid-60s in concord, san jose. so that weather pattern continues. chilly mornings and sunny, mild afternoons through the next several days. our next chance for rain late tuesday into wednesday.

our series "a more perfect union" aims to show that what unites us as americans is far greater than what divides us. this morning we're learning about a surprising safe haven for veterans living with ptsd. nationwide about 17 veterans die by suicide every single day. now some blacksmith are building new tools to help. chip reid takes us to the shop >>ep in rural virginia, an ancient trade is being molded into modern medicine. >> it took us from, you know, where we were just scraping and brought us to where we're living again. >> they're like angels. >> reporter: those angels are steve hotz and dave seitz, gulf war veterans who founded black horse forge to help military families like u.s. marine sean mack and his wife, brittany. >> when you come here, it's like

a different place almost. like all your troubles and worries and everything like stay at the driveway. then you get a little relief. >> reporter: relief that comes from literally hammering things out. >> you can come here, and you can blow off a little bit of steam. you can tell us what your problems are. we're going to listen. >> reporter: hotz had these blacksmith tools but no shop. sites had a shed on his horse farm but no tools. they put it together and now teach classes to vets, active service members, and first responders who learn how to transform something old -- >> hammering out -- >> reporter: into something new. >> they go from railroad spike, prison shank, to finished blade. >> reporter: while also transforming themselves. >> i hold everything in. and that might just be the marine inside me. but i'm like a boulder. they've taught me how to crack that open and get some stress out and talk about it. >> reporter: here, no topic is too hot. after all, even tough guys have a melting point. >> i get texts sometimes in the middle of the night saying, hey,

can economic to the forge. -- can i come to the forge. they need that outlempt. >> reporter: they want to talk about it. >> they want to talk about it. we're their couch, we're their therapist so to speak. >> reporter: that's the tool they build together, trust. >> a comfortable place, a safe zone. >> reporter: a safe place that's made a lifesaving difference for where who come here. >> when the guy is able to lift the burden while he's here and then he's got to go home, how far down the road does he get before the burden comes back? >> yeah. >> reporter: gets you emotional even talking about it. why is that? >> i think it's because we're vested. we've seen it. >> reporter: seen it in what they call saves. veterans comtemplating suicide who find a reason to live here. >> three months ago my best friend up here tried to kill himself. literally, i got to his house and basically pulled the gun out of his mouth. they helped him out dramatically. to the extent that he said if he's hurting financially, we'll

build knives and the put them on eastbou ebay and give him the money. >> reporter: they fund the forge out their pockets, their way of serving. >> we had a bad night and walked here at 5:00 in the morning, knocked on his door. dave came out and just talked to us. >> we didn't have to fire the forge up that night. they just wanted to talk. >> reporter: and find a way forward with new irons in the fire. for "cbs this morning," chip reid, stafford, virginia. >> wow. >> pretty good knives. >> yeah. i mean, that's -- i love that line, even tough guys have a melting point. it is so great what they're doing. >> that is a beautiful line. making things with your hands is good for body and mind for them, for a loot t of people. >> incredible therapy. on the "cbs this morning" podcast, hall of fame wide receiver jerry rice discusses his legendary football career and his new book "america's game: the nfl at 100." listen wherever you like to get your podcast. and before we go, a teacher's

lifesaving decision to donate an organ to a former student's mother. we'll be right back. you know when you're at ross and you realize it's time your sister stopped borrowing your sweaters? yeah! that's yes for less. stop stealing mine... never. holiday gifts everyone's sure to love at 20 to 60 percent off department store prices. at ross. yes for less.

at 20 to 60 percent off department store prices. kerrygold has a taste so rich it can take you to ireland's lush, green pastures. where grass-fed cows produce rich, creamy milk for a truly delicious taste. kerrygold. the taste that takes you there.

and you realize you are the the hostess with the mostest. you know when you're at ross yes! yeah! that's yes for less. entertain in style all season long. it feels even better when you find it for less-at ross. yes for less.

all right. before we go, a north carolina teacher is ready to give a life-changing present. her kidney. [ scream ] >> oh, my god! >> tracy shearin cried tears of joy when she learned the news in the hospital. she has lupus and thought she may have to wait up to eight years for a donor because she has a rare blood type. >> wow. >> that's when her daughter's former teacher, pam ost, stepped in. she made a sign asking tracy to be her, get this, kidney sister. >> be my kidney sister. >> i said yes. >> yes. i feel like that's what i was put here for. and this woman is a special lady. >> love these kind of stories. pam is a perfect match for tracy and told "cbs this morning" she's waiting for final test results to get the all-clear.

>> that's so cool. >> yeah. >> that is so great. together forever. all right. one more before we go. >> yeah. >> we want to wish a happy 50th to our floor manager, patty. there she is. >> a couple more seconds. >> she says -- she says it's the 25th anniversary of her 25th birthday. she is the lady -- she is the lady who keeps this crazy circus running and in the ring every day. we love her even though we don't always act like it. >> aww. happy birthday, patty. >> we've got another minute. we've got to stretch it out. ♪ happy birthday to you happy birthday to you ♪ ♪ happy birthday dear patty happy birthday to you ♪ >> and many, many more. that does it for us. stay with cbs news for completely coverage of the public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. norah o'donnell will anxior a special report from washington in just a few minutes. you can also find continuous

coverage on our cbs streaming download the free -- the cake -- >> entered the studio. >> the free cbs news app on your mobile or connected device, and get a full wrap-up with norah tonight on the "cbs evening news." we will see you tomorrow here on "cbs this morning." bye-bye. >> happy thursday. it's time for the ultimate sleep number event on the

sleep number 360 smart bed. you can adjust your comfort on both sides, your sleep number setting. can it help keep us asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and snoring? no problem ...and done. so you can really promise better sleep. not promise. prove.

and now during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. ends saturday this is a kpix 5 news morning update. good morning the it 8:55. i'm gianna franco. checking the roadways. is is still busy. we have a lot of brake lights along the bay bridge. metering lights remain on and you're stacked up. still busy out of the maze as well. on the flip side if you're commuting out of san francisco, say over to the east bay, we have a stalled vehicle on the lower deck of the bay bridge. that is caulkcausing a pretty big backup this morning.

if you're taking 580 around harrison, we have a crash reported there. in the south bay northbound 17 at bear creek, an accident clearing there. lanes are now open. just updating moments ago. still slow on 17. those usual hot spot as long 101 out of south san jose and downtown san jose along 280 northbound. northbound 880, 230 to the maze, delays. also as yeah work your way near the coliseum and improving a little bit on the golden gate bridge. >> you can see on the live traffic cameras, clear skies as we start off the day. a chilly start as well. here is a live look with the trish sure island camera with blue skies on the bay bridge, downtown san francisco. we check out our temperatures in the 40s and 50s as we start our day. as we head through the afternoon, plenty of sun. daytime highs seasonal. mid- to upper 60s for just daytime highs inland.

not a big temperature spread from the coast to our inland locations. mid-60s for concord, san jose, 63 for a high in oakland and for san francisco. we'll keep those chilly mornings and mild and sunny afternoons going through the next several days. next rain chance late tuesday into wednesday.

is your business still settling for slow internet? well time is money. switch to comcast business now and get a great deal when you get fast, reliable internet. with a 30-day money-back guarantee, installation when it works for you, and 24/7 customer support. so what are you waiting for? get this great deal when you sign up for fast, reliable internet. call 1-800-501-6000 today. comcast business. beyond fast.

wayne: ta-da! tiffany: whoo! jonathan: more deals?! wayne: tiffany, what's behind curtain number one? jonathan: it's a new mercedes benz! wayne: beep beep. - give it to me, tiffany! jonathan: it's a trip to fiji! - i am amazing! wayne: who wants some cash? - i need that! wayne: you've got the big deal! jonathan: it's time for "let's make a deal." now here's tv's big dealer, wayne brady! wayne: hey, america, welcome to "let's make a deal," wayne brady here. thank you so much for tuning in. here is a question: who wants to make a deal? i need a couple.

you guys are a couple? come with me. graduate and bathrobe dude, let's go, let's go. everybody else have a seat for me, please. everybody else have a seat.