why should don mcgahn be able to defy this subpoena?clear when this hearing will wrap up or when this judge will rule. obviously, the ruling could have some big effects and ripple effects for all those former officials who are currently refusing to testify. >> jessica, the other big court case is that of the former john bolton deputy national security adviser. the two men share a lawyer. kupperman refused to appear before the house this week. >> reporter: that's right and his attorney filed days before he was supposed to appear. he wants clarification from the court, saying who should kupperman listen to, house democrats and their subpoena or the white house, who is claiming absolute immunity here? the judge here, richard leon, is putting this on a fast track. he knows that time is of the offense. of course, it will be imperative on how he rules as to this witness, charles kupperman because of course, chuck cooper, the attorney here, represents john bolton. with john bolton's testimony being requested next week and bolton subsequently s

than there is rudy giuliani and don mcgahn. mcgahn ultimately cooperated with the mueller probe, when he had to face uncomfortable choices sort of chose the country, tried to walk that line and still work for the president. rudy giuliani seems to make different choices. >> yeah, decidedly and defiantly different choices, and as you said, nicolle, it seems to me that the main -- the main implication of what you're saying, which strikes me as obviously true, is that michael cohen is in jail and paul manafort is in jail and don mcgahn is not in jail, and if you had to ask me which side of the line rudy giuliani's in danger of being, that's another way in which not just his attitude and his temperament but i think that as this thing expands and deepens, simultaneously, i think the questions surrounding rudy giuliani's criminal exposure are going to become central to this investigation and i'm not predicting where that will end. i'm not saying he will end up in the same place as paul manafort and michael cohen, but i'm saying he's i

we want to see it wrap up to get don mcgahn's testimony. the house is trying to move quickly on impeachment. so we'll see how quickly this judge makes a ruling. >> there was another key willing fight. this fight involved bolton's former deputy charles kupperman. >> that's right, wolf. right down the hall from the earlier hearing, this is essentially a scheduling hearing. but it was clear that a judge wants to move very quickly, at least quickly by court standards. the question is whether or not we'll be able to get the testimony from charles kupperman or from john bolton if he gets subpoenaed in time for this inquiry. as you know, the democrats have set an aggressive timeline. perhaps an impeachment vote by december. this judge, richard leon today, said that he's looking at holding a hearing in early december. december 10th to be exact. so if that schedule holds, wolf, it's not clear to me that the house democrats are going to get the testimony that they need. this is why the lawyers for the house today were in court saying that the judge s

the don mcgahn case, the judge just made some very interesting comments on that. >> yes, she did. she's not buying the arguments they're making here. she showed skepticism that this entire fight doesn't belong in court, that the courts have no role in deciding whether don mcgahn has to show up to honor the subpoena issued by the house. i'll read you a couple of parts of what she said. quote, we don't live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information. i see almost every day people who are former executive branch officials giving information to the media. people are out there talking. people are out there saying things. she's referring to the fact, wolf, that a lot of former administration officials freely speak their minds on television, and that the administration, the trump white house does not try to stop those appearances. essentially she's saying that the same should apply to the house subpoena. >> important point, indeed. this one involving john bolton's former deputy, charles kupperman, who dem

don mcgahn has so far not appeared on capitol hill, as far as i'm aware, neither have any of the other witnesses quoted in a symbolically important way in the mueller report. but here you have a steady stream. i think i have a list. it includes tim morrison who's already been mentioned. two more state department aides. here they are. tuesday. another nsc director. wednesday state department adviser for ukraine. two other defense department official. and then thursday the testimony that we have already talked about someone expected to, tim morrison is expected to corroborate what is widely believed to be the most devastating testimony given to date from ambassador bill taylor. >> what they are doing now is the tactics they used from the second half of the mueller probe, which was the stonewall, with giuliani out there trying to muddy the waters. it's also what they did when the house, when the democrats won control of the house earlier this year and it started running investigation after investigation. and more or less the white house strategy and response was to just say no. they are w

. >> reporter: don mcgahn is the operative example, it seems as though don mcgahn he's a deal with the white house for them to assert executive privilege and he has cover not to testify. what we're testing with john bolton is, what happens if a former white house employee does want to testify, under subpoena or not, then what can be done to compel that person not to testify. and that's an open question, chuck. >> let me turn to turkey. the president at the event with the president and saluting the st. louis blues, he announced that mike pence is going to -- well, he didn't say he was going to turkey, we know he's going to turkey now. to do what, at this point? >> reporter: the goal is to broker a cease-fire. the important news we got out of the white house today is the timing on this. the meeting will happen thursday. crucially, there is a meeting, the white house is on the record saying they think they have a meeting with president erdogan and they'll try to force some sort of cease-fire. remember, that's thursday. >> they think they have a meeting with erdogan? we're sending the vice

a different judge will hear arguments whether don mcgahn is immune from testifying. there's a lot of this moving forward, moving into the public phase now. >> a lot to unpack. >>> ahead, winds as fierce as a hurricane, driving raging fires across california, including one inching extremely close to the ronald reagan presidential library. we call it the mother standard of care. it's how we bring hope to our patients- like viola. her team treated her cancer and strengthened her spirit. so viola could focus on their future. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. cancer treatment centers of america. we're oscar mayer deli fresh your very first sandwich,m... your mammoth masterpiece. and...whatever this was. because we make our meat with the good of the deli and no artificial preservatives. make every sandwich count with oscar mayer deli fresh. corrupt president in our nation's history. when i called for his impeachment two years ago, washington insiders and every candidate for president said it was too soon. but i believed then, as i do now, tha

we've seen what happened with those lawsuits with don mcgahn. they're still sitting in court. that's a problem for the democrats who want to move forward with this impeachment probe. if what they view is obstruction to the subpoenas, they'll use it as obstruction of congress. they're saying we'll do essentially the same thing here. we'll see what the democrats' next step is, but at moment, john, they say they're not going to put up with it as they try to wrap up this impeachment inquiry in the next few weeks, john. >> you won't put up with it, but how do you get rid of the blocks if you can't interview the people you need to? with me to share their reporting, cnn's nia-malika henderson, john with the "new york times," also legal analyst shannon. the democrats call this an impeachment inquiry. the white house says they have a standing. the democrats don't want to drag this out in court. do they have a point where they can say, no, you have to come answer questions. >> they can say that, but the difficulty is what legal path. legal paths usually end up in court. i do think a poi

he knew a lawyer, don mcgahn, who was inwhheederalis society and worked for the trump campaign.ai >> don r many yes. and they had a mutual trust. th understand where each other are on issues that they are extremely concerned abou >> narrator: they told trump that pmising to appoints federalist juduld help him win over conservatives. >> leader mcconnell asked the president at that point, and i think don mcgahn was part of those nversations, to begin tting out a list that he would make public. (hn honks) >> narrator: candidate trump likethe idea of a list. he attended a meeting with the ads of the federalist society and the conservative herite undation. >> he was very open about wh he wanted to do. nehe sd he wanted a list. he said, "can anet one?" and just raised my hand. "yes, sir." and aid, "can you have it by thursday?" we got the president a list of dges, and that's the federalist society's business.oc >> he outsourced this, essentially, to these two organizations.on he had no un hrstanding of whoes thpeople were. but when presented with it and when made clear thr , "this will hel

, the former white house council, they could go to court and say, well, let's force don mcgahn to testifyt involved. either you produce the documents and you are going to have an article of impeachment. >> so in other words, by officially launching the impeempment inquiry, they have taken out the court process. >> they have chosen to take out the court process. they could still go to court and try to get some of these materials. but they're in an expedited schedule. they recognize if you go in for court, you're in a litigation process. nancy pelosi wants this over by the end of the year. >> here's what elijah cummings says about this. i do not take this step lightly. over the past several weeks the committee's tried several times to obtain voluntary compliance for documents. >> that's where the process has been. think about it. when the democrats took control of the house in november of 2018, so many of us thought there's going to be so much oversight. they're going to learn so much about the trump administration. it's been a failure. they have -- because the white house has stonewalled o

i think the judge's ruling is going to be yes, don mcgahn, you must testify, but the white house willly go to the court of appeals. >> and will appeal it. but what happened today with mcgahn has a lot to do with what's going on with cooperman. it's similar in that cooperman wants the case to decide if he should comply with the subpoena and the impeachment proceeding. the next hearing we've learned is scheduled for december 10th. how is that going to impact the timeline for impeachment and what happens in that? >> here is just how related it is. at the beginning of the mcgahn team both legal teams said your honor, don't be offended if half of our legal team is going down the hall to the cooperman. here is how further related it is. john bolton came up and the judge said whatever happens with cooperman is likely going to happen with john bolton as well. he said that explicitly on the record. so the stakes here really high. but the timeline is really difficult, as you said, pam. even when a court moves as fast as it can as it is here with cooperman, we're still not going back until decem

determine whether deputy national security advisor charles kupperman and former white house counsel don mcgahn will be forced to testify under subpoena before congress. and what happens in kupperman's hearing could have big implications on whether the former national security advisor john bolton ends up testifying under subpoena before congress, as well. because kupperman shares an attorney with bolton and bolton has been invited into the impeachment inquiry next week and he has simply said he is not going to come voluntarily. he wants the subpoena. we'll get to all that in a moment. >>> all of this is happening after the house took its first vote on impeachment proceeds approving a resolution to guide the next steps of the process. but vote fell very much along party lines. two democrats broke with their party. one republican had already broken with his party to the point where he left the party. justin amash voted with the democrats. okay. that's the definition, folks, of party line. legally, doesn't change much of anything. but symbolically, lawmakers are drawing their lines in the sand and

told mueller's team, former national security adviser michael flynn and former white house counsel don mcgahn cooperated with the investigation among others, a d o j attorney says officials and now after review the interviews line by line partly to protect national security information. the department has until november first to release the first portion of the redacted versions of the documents and tonight at 5.30 our 4 is always tracking local stories, here's a look at what's going on in your neighborhood right now we will start in the east bay tonight, a warning for folks in fremont. >>there's a roadside jewelry theft scam according to police so far. police have had at least 9 reports of folks falling victim to this scam where thieves use fake jewelry to steal from victims. so here's how it works in this latest incident that these were the big driving down avenue when they stopped to ask the victim for directions, the victim offered to help the couple in the car men in the car told the victim that his mother had just passed away and it was a cultural custom to give away her jewelry. then w

a different judge will hear arguments whether don mcgahn is immune from testifying. >>> no more politicalitter. best to focus on both problems. it comes amid intense scrutiny of media giants, particularly facebook, to allow politicians to run false ads. >>> 2020 presidential candidates are responding. former vice president joe biden's spokesperson saying, faced with the choice of ad dollars or the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that for once revenue did not win out. andrew yang called it the rare good over the bottom line. and pete buttigieg said this -- >> it's a bold step. it reflects that sense of responsibility. and i think other online platforms will do well to accept their responsibility for truth or question whether they should be in the business. >> it wasn't all heart emojis for twitter. in a statement, mr. trump's campaign manager called the move, yet another attempt to silence conservatives since twitter knows that mr. trump has the most sophisticated social media. mark zuckerberg opened his third-quarter earnings call saying, we have to be careful about adopting

. >> so you'd put ambassador sunland, bill barr, don mcgahn in jail? >> i would use the full power and among that is this question of inherent rights of the congress to hold people. i think we ought to be prepared to go all out on this this is a fundamental question of the constitution and the separation of powers and there is a dozen other issues in which this president has assumed powers of congress, specifically money out of nato and taking them more than 100 and say 1.6 billion out of nato to build his border wall. completely ignoring the appropriation congrepower of co, the power to purse. >> you are talking about different issues here. i'm specifically focusing on the ukraine call and the focus of this impeachment inquiry right now that question of inher represent contempt was to that issue. what do you sa toy critics who would listen to your argument and saying you are throwing the kitchen sink in here. you just don't want the president in office. >> no, what i want is for the constitutional separation of powers to be abided now and into the fut

the people they were preventing from going to testify in the mueller investigation instance were don mcgahn a guy who really didn't want to come forward and be a whistleblower and didn't want to testify. so he chose to pretend this white house ban was something real and legal and he hasn't can come forward, right? and some of the rother folks thy said they were going to subpoena and they agreed to pretend that the white house could block them. and what the ambassador did today was to prove that's all a bunch of hot air. if you want to testify, even if you're still work interesting the u.s. government, you can. >> when you take this together, the way that actual ukrain issue is shifting, at a certain point if we simplify it. there's a lot of names and details to it. is this a scandal that started out looking like international watergate but now has elements of iran contra? >> those are hard dots for me to connect. >> let me follow up and let you go. the dots being the biden stuff is abusive power for election year. but if there's a broader national security intrigue, it might be both worse a

some of these court fights are still waiting for their final ruling, former white house counsel don mcgahnate matter. now they're warning if the white house continues to refuse to comply it can be rolled into an article of impeachment against the president of the united states for obstructing congress and look no further, when nancy pelosi wrote last night to the white house eroding in a responsible white house letter warning that the white house' refusal, should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president's abuse of power from the american people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction. adam schiff the house intelligence chairman also warning that they will now put up with a prolonged fight with the white house saying they will consider as potential grounds for impeachment in the past. yesterday he tweeted the white house says there is nothing wrong with pressuring a foreign government to intervene in a foreign election. they will not cooperate unless it's on their terms. they mean the president is above the law. the constitution says otherwise. so you

there are subpoenas out to the white house counsel don mcgahn in the mueller report and many others.but yovanovitch proved you can go in, you don't need the president's permission. and now -- again, the democrats have what they need already to promote an article of impeachment. now they're filling in the blanks of who else was involved. they're going to focus like a laser on the five-hour time period between when bill taylor was talking to gordon sondland on the phone, how often and what got talked about in the sondland/donald trump, the president the center of this, and then how did they come to the place where sondland was saying let's take this offline. there's no quid pro quo. but let's not talk about it on text. that is going to be a rich, rich vein to mine this week. >> in terms of who else is involved, we know there are these two guys, soviet-born associates, long-time associates of rudy giuliani. and you happened to meet with them. you happened to catch them on audio tape. tell us a little bit more about that meeting and what they said. >> yeah, alisyn. this was back in march

don mcgahn, the former white house counsel's lawyer when he was subpoenaed to testify. his lawyer sent a letter saying the white house has invoked executive privilege and so, you know, obviously i'm not showing. so he could have done that. what i think kupperman's trying to do is say, you know, look, i'm trying to be responsible here. ive got congress telling me to show up. i've got the white house telling me not to. i need somebody to give me an answer, so, court, please tell me. it's a bit of a pr move on his part saying he doesn't have a dog in the fight, he'll do what he's legally required to do. i don't think this move probably surprised adam schiff very much. i think if anything schiff may be more surprised by the amount of cooperation wehe's gotten fr witnesses. kupperman could have written a letter. he decided to try to look like he's playing it straight and ask a court to decide. >> i also think, kate, he may be a canary in the coal mine. he's represented by the same counsel as john bolton, his former boss. this is a pattern being tested that we'll see from mul

i think the president learned something from even h-- even hie house counsel don mcgahn said in the muellerestigation that he thought it was a bad idea to cooperate at the level they were cooperating by allowing him to speak with investigators of mueller's team. i think the president learned from that and perhaps felt emboldened by the conclusion of mueller, that they could just not cooperate here, deem this impeachment to be illegitimate. we know what the facts are. we know that the house has the sole right of impeachment, and it is a political process. that's what the president is engaged in, stowing along for the purposes of political hardball. >> ross, as i said in my case, the judiciary hasn't actually sided with the president of the united states very often. this is a very clearcut issue about congressional oversight and the constitution. should the president really be so eager to hear from them in this actual case? >> maybe not, but i think david is right, though. the speaker wants to get this situation handled very quickly. we're heading into an election cycle, and it's very unlikel

volker, not a household name, and this has come about so quickly, unlike the mueller probe where don mcgahn and others became household names, can you put volker's role in some sort of context? is he someone who was uncomfortable with donald trump's demand that the ukrainian leader dirty up biden? is he someone who believed there was a quid pro quo, either implicitly or explicitly? >> he's a professional diplomat. he knows that when the u.s. asks ukraine of something, because of how much they depend on us economically, militarily, that they will take that ask seriously. what is offensive to me is that you have this special envoy in place and then you have a rogue emissary like rudy giuliani who the president prioritizes his take on ukraine and his relationships with ukrainians more than the seasoned professional who actually was there to advance trump's personal interests. >> in 9 1/2 hours, did it become clear to you whether ambassador volker believes the military aid to ukraine was tied to president trump's request to dirty up the bidens? >> we have evidence now that there were state depa

don mcgahn is not talking and his chief of staff and hope hicks showing up smiling and saying nothing. in this case, mulvaney may be stone walling or pompeo. >> he told the truth about a quid pro quo. >> everyday we are reporting on this, somebody else is going to testify. is that different this time? >> yes, and in a way that we also had that in watergate. there were people who knew things who came forward. we had deep throat who was turned out to be an fbi person. who told the press what was going on behind the scenes. there are people now. people in the budget office knows what was going on and people in the defense department knows what goes on. too many people and too many eyes and ears and brains. the president can't shut everything down. that's why he's in real trouble. that's why this melt down, nancy pelosi says pray for him, he's melting down. he does not know where to stop as he's building up his nest for leaving the white house because he's now getting the g-7, doral, what is that about? and syria making irrational and crazy decisions. towards the end, nixon had a melt dow

he would have been sean don mcgahn delorean.ut because it's a secretive government agency, the cia has not been restrained.d. in fact, it's only become more powerful and more autonomous. powerful enough to take on a president? we willo see. one reason the permanent washington is so powerful, of course, so resistant to change or oversight, is that it makes alliances with some of the least impressive but most ambitious members of congress. just days ago for example house intelligence german adam schiff claimed his office had no contact whatsoever with the cia whistle-blower. >> first off, have you heard from the whistle-blower? do you want to hear from the whistle-blower? >> we have not spoken directly with the whistle-blower. we would like w to. >> tucker: he also claims to know nothing about what was in the whistle-blower's complaint before it came out. but yesterday "the new york times" revealed that both of those claims were lies. schiff apologized in a way saying that he "should have been much more clear." right. schiff now a

department of justice attorneys are battling with attorney for white house counsel don mcgahn. chris? >> chris: thanks, mike emanuel on a historic day. thank you. democratic congressman eric swalwell of california is on two committees involved in this impeachment inquiry. now that congress has laid out the rules, i'll ask him what he thinks. we'll also hear from a colleague of his on the house intel committee, chris stewart of utah. stewart says he's not here to defend the president but to find the truth. i'll ask him what he thinks needs to happen next. from all the journalists at fox news, this is "fox news reporting." memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty bibe

start with don mcgahn. we know the how has been seeking his appearance nearly a year.u in the courtroom, what was the vibe like and did you get a sense of the judge and where she may be leaning? >> yeah, brooke. you really can sense the idea of this is a case of constitutional impact. right there in the courtroom. it's laid out in front of you. this bottom is about separation of powers. you can see it, because to your right in the courtroom is a table full of lawyers representing the house of representatives. congressmen. to your left is a table full of lawyers representing the justice department. the executive branch. the judge now, she clearly understands the importance of it's case and is locked in. read the briefs carefully. asking very pointed questions of both sides. i have to say i've noticed a bit more skepticism from the judge towards the justice department lawyers. a bit more raised eyebrows, a little more, for real? are you arguing that? looks like the jich udge is fee the house of representatives argument and buying in with that more than with the executive

they're representing the judiciary committee in its lawsuit against don mcgahn to force him to testify. they're pushing to get the justice department to release the grand jury terrible from rory mcilroy's probe and they're representing democrats to get tax rurps and financial records from the president. >> i think it's a unprecedented amount and scope. of litigation we're seeing. it's three dimensional game of chess. >> letter has only been in his role since january, but now ten months later, his end office is at the epicenter of a hyper partisan power struggle. >> what we see in this impeachment is a kangaroo court. >> between republicans and the president and house democrats. >> the job is a nonpartisan job. he has to ignore those cat calls from the sidelines. they're propostrouse, not justified. >> and herb nathan knows all of the current litigation spearheaded by the general counsel. it's not actually directly tied to the inquiry on ukraine and it's unlikely that any of the fights over documents and subpoenas will ultimately end up in court since litigation takes so long and this i

think of john bolton or don mcgahn. so that is significant. so not only could kupperman have important things to say, but what happens about whether he does testify or not and the process around it could be telling in a much bigger picture way. >> yeah, and very important way. and over to our prosecutor, when we look at this, which way might the judge decide? because this is a precedent, right, potentially that others in the inner circle will be looking at very carefully. >> yes, this is an incredibly important decision that we will expect from the d.c. district court. and in that sense what kutcher m kupperman is saying that is he is caught between the rock and the hard place. he is caught between the wishes of the executive blanche and ra legislative blanche and it is correctly up to the judiciary branch to weigh in here and tell him what do. he is doing the right thing. it will be precedented setting. i'm not positive that they will have a ruling. i doubt that we will have a ruling before his expected monday appearance. that won't likely ha

need, memos of documents that robert mueller did, for example, with former white house counsel don mcgahnow the white house is saying that it has agreed to give the house of representatives at least three memos, but the key here is that many of those memos will be redacted. so this is a big fight that's happening in court. and what's interesting about this fight, kate, is that this is really showing how broad this impeachment inquiry could be. the whole fight over the access to documents, the doj has been pushing back on it, saying, of course, there's never been a vote for a formal impeachment inquiry. and the general counsel in the house of representatives here saying we don't need a formal vote to do our jobs to look into this, to launch this impeachment inquiry. and crucially here, kate, the house general counsel saying that this impeachment inquiry stems far beyond just the ukraine issue. and crucially, in court today, the house general counsel saying that the president in fact could be impeached just for lying to the american public. again, this shows just how broad the scope is in t

start to hand over those materials to congress including at least some version of the fbi with don mcgahn, the former white house counsel. the trump white house tried to block that from happening from the very beginning. they continue to try to block all witnesses from testifying in all congressional investigations including the impeachment proceedings. we're now learning they may be trying to block the woman you see on the right side of your screen here, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. she was expected to give a deposition to the impeachment committees on friday morning. our suggestions now that the white house is going to try to block her from making that appearance. the white house refusing to hand over documents, refusing to acknowledge or respond to subpoenas that and refusing to allow witnesses to testify and the white house making weird assertions of privilege that don't exist in the law is a point of contention between the white house and congress all along. but in light of this impeachment inquiry, it will be much more than that. the house of representatives now appears to

we know that they have done with formers like don mcgahn, tried to stop her or stop him in that case from testifying. the question for the white house really is how are they going to respond when all this becomes public because it's clear that the impeachment strategy, at least the defense, is just to let the president rip, have the president use his twitter feed and have him use public rallies the question the very legitimacy of this entire proceeding. we'll see what fiona hill has to say, if she has an opening statement like we got from ambassador yovanovitch and what sort of areas she fills in. you get the sense the white house doesn't have a concerted legal strategy. they're very much focused on the p.r. side of this. >>> hans nichols, thank you. garrett, really kwiekly here, timing, do we know how long this thing will go today, when we might hear something? >> it's scheduled to go as late as 6:00 this evening. most of these depositions have been all-day affairs, we think they got a later start this morning, but craig they could be locked up in the basement for hours. >> okay, ga

can the white house keep don mcgahn and kupperman from testifying. let's begin with the latest on the vote. cnn national correspondent suzanne malveaux is live on capitol hill. this is a momentous day. things are going to proceed very quickly. walk us through how the next several minutes and hours go. >> sure, jim. it is called officially house resolution 660. it's going before the full house of representatives. and what will happen first, democrats will take five minutes, one minute a piece. republicans will take five minutes, and then it will be open for full debate for about an hour or so. 30 minutes for the democrats. 30 minutes for the republicans. then we expect that after that there will be a vote, potentially as early as about 10:15, 10:30 when all house members will have to go on the record in terms of moving the impeachment inquiry forward. and the process here and how that's going to go, establishing rules for the public hearings. also allowing the intelligence chair adam schiff as well as republican counterpart devin nunes to question wit

he wants to do illegal things, but don mcgahn stops him and jeff sessions stops him. no one stops him. so syria shows the real-world consequences of trump unleashed here at the end of a thousand days of his presidency. doral shows the incredible brazenness of the corruption. and ukraine shows genuinely, i think, illegitimate use of u.s. foreign policy for plolitical ends. >> s.e., final thought? >> the hillary/stein/tulsi thing is so bizarre. for hillary's part, so unwise. i don't think she needs to make these outlandish -- i mean, bill is right. tulsi is a favorite of russia's and certainly assad's, but she doesn't have to go this far. it feels to me like hillary is sort of in burn it down mode. just burn it down. i mean, her aides are, you know, giving these cute, you know, kind of responses. well well, if the nesting doll fits. >> i mean, how does this help the democrats in any way? >> it doesn't. it doesn't. and you have to be wondering if you're a front runner -- i mean, tul tulsi is polling at 1%. hillary elevating her almost. if you're a real front run we are a

you remember don mcgahn sat down with the mueller team. a different strategy for a different investigative body, but when you tuck to officials here, ali, you get the sense they thought mueller was much more of an existential threat. there isn't the panic in the white house at least as it relates to providing these additional documents. there's been concern about the initial response but it doesn't seem like it's the same level it was during the mueller investigation. ali? >> hans nichols, thanks very much, hans nichols at the white house. rudy giuliani is said to have gotten help to find information on joe biden and his son hunter. according to white house documents president trump urged ukrainian president zelensky to work with attorney general william barr. he had a chance to ask president zelensky face-to-face if he's ever had contact with rudy giuliani. >> were you ever approached by or meet with rudy giuliani? >> never. never had any phone calls with him. >> the news broke in this hour yesterday that house democrats have subpoenaed g

certainly we've seen that in the case of don mcgahn in our demands for him to come before congress toestify on any number of issues. >> obviously there's going to be a huge amount of public interest in what kurt volker might have to say. the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, who was recalled early from her post in suspicious circumstances seemed suspicious at the time, particularly suspicious now in retrospect, now that we know what was going on at that time. do you expect the public will ever know what happens in these proceedings? will they be taped or transcribed? is this committee council taking it, are we going to see any of this stuff? >> sure. with regard to former ambassador i don't v , she's going to have a lot to say about what occurred with regard to the allegations in the complaint. i think that we should have maximum transparency with regard to the proceedings. that being said, if classified information is shared or something that can't be displayed in open setting, it makes sense to have them in closed setting and perhaps later on chairman schiff will decide whether to

. >> let's talk about the former white house counsel don mcgahn. the house has been negotiating with the justice department for some time to get his testimony. that's apparently failed, but mcgahn isn't involved in the ukraine testimony -- in the ukraine story, so does that suggest that you're broadening the possible articles of impeachment? >> i think what it suggests, we have been working to get mr. mcgahn from the moment that we saw his name 130 times in the mueller report. i don't even understand mr. mcgahn's position. he is no longer at the white house. he was formerly a white house counsel. he voluntarily or by way of subpoena submitted himself to the mueller report and was cited 130 times. i think that process is proceeding and we hope that maybe mr. mcgahn will see his way of understanding his responsibility to this nation as opposed to an individual or as opposed to a party. >> okay. congresswoman sheila jackson lee, thank you so much. >> it's a pleasure to be with you. >>> what do people outside the beltway think about the impeachment inq

you know, don mcgahn didn't testify.se judiciary took them three months to go to court and say it's an emergency. of course, the court is like it's an emergency remember where were you three months ago? where is the emergency? this is different. when these people are testifying schiff will be in very soon in front of a court pushing to get this information from the individuals who aren't showing up. and it will be an emergency situation, need to be done quickly. and it is an impeachment investigation, which gives the court added ammunition to force them to testify more quickly and turn over documents. >> cynthia, the republicans or the white house has been trying to force nancy pelosi to have an official impeachment vote. without that vote, they're saying this is not an official investigation. it's a big scam. they don't have to do it. let's say nancy pelosi puts this to a vote. let's say she gets it. will they have any other viable excuse to not show up? >> of course, they l. not to date myself. this is lucie and the fo

they're representing the judiciary committee against don mcgahn to force him to testify.hey're pushing to get the justice department to release the grand jury material from robert mueller's probe and they're representing democrats and various house committees in multiple attempts to get tax returns and financial records from the president. >> i do think that it's a -- an unprecedented amount and scope of litigation that we're seeing. it's a three-dimensional game of chess. >> letter has only been in his role as general counsel since january and ten months later his independent office is at the epicenter of a hyperpartisan constitutional power struggle. >> what we see in this impeachment is a kangaroo court. >> between the republicans and the president and house democrats. >> the job is a nonpartisan job. he has to ignore that those catcalls from the sideline, they're preposterous, and they're not justified. >> herb nathan notes that all of the current litigation spearheaded by the general counsel is not directly tied to the impeachment inquiry and it is unlikely that any

there was don mcgahn, white house counsel, rob porter, staff secretary.e trying to preserve the rule of law. all those people have left the building. there's no one left who will tell the president no, even though what he's engaging in appears to many to be impeachable conduct. he is surrounded, his attorney general, secretary of state, they're all enablers at this point. >> and the vice president, you heard what the vice president, he came out and supported everything that the president said earlier in the day today, including let's bring in china, let china of all countries investigate the former vice president of the united states. >> well, the vice president had a couple of days to mull the president laying out there that why don't we release the transcript of the vice president's call with zelensky as well. who knows what he was implying with that. i do have a hard time believing this vice president especially in light of the fact he was publicly lied to by michael flynn about having conversations with the russian ambassador about sanctions, and had

you have a lawsuit involving don mcgahn, former white house counsel fighting a subpoena he received. you have four lawsuits relating to the president's tax and financial records. when one judge comes out and says the impeachment is valid, the subpoenas are valid, you need to comply with what the house is doing, it can have sort of a snowball effect in encouraging other judges to reach similar conclusions which could be problematic for the white house, even on the current ukraine investigation now we have a new suit filed yesterday by the former deputy national security adviser asking if his subpoena is valid. i think judge howell's ruling could really make its way through all those different decisions. >> leigh ann, are the democrats celebrating in a small way? this could be potentially a big decision for them. >> they absolutely are celebrating. of course they know the reality that this will likely be appealed, but for the time being, they're saying it gives not only democrats but they're saying the house of representatives a big win here. it shows the congressional authority and th

there was a not at all veiled insinuation yesterday from jeff berman who is a don mcgahn ally, trumpppointee, runs that office. he made perfectly clear the investigation was ongoing. and i think both of the gentlemen that spoke yesterday had comments that didn't necessarily relate to the indictments but spoke out about foreign interference. >> absolutely. and with these two associates of rudy had done and we've reported today surpr to have no real job right? no business that's operational. and yet they somehow manage to republican candidates and super pacs in just the last couple of years. of course the big problem they face is they are accused of funneling foreign money through an llc, so enabling a foreign straw donor to give to an election. so that's -- >> illegal. >> it's called a clue. [ laughter ] >> and not a coincidence. it wasn't a canadian donor. it was a russian donor. >> absolutely. and so, i mean, there is so much more we need to explore here. but i thought what's interesting too in that press conference was i got -- they seemed to leave the sense that their comments wer

while weave seen democrats engage in a long drawn out fight that led to court battles such as when don mcgahnouse not to appear before the house judiciary committee they went to court to fight that. that's still tied up in court. there are indications democrats don't have the appetite to do that right now if these witnesses are not going to be allowed to come forward. they'll turn that into what they view as obstruction of congress. they'll say this is similar to what happened during the nixon impeachment proceedings citing obstruction of congress as part of one of the articles. that will be what you hear from adam schiff when he talks downstairs momentarily. the other question is there are other state department officials who this committee, these committees are investigating this impeachment probe who they want to speak with. and it's a question about whether the current state department officials will come including the former ambassador to ukraine, yovanovitch, who is scheduled to testify later this week. she is now still a state department employee -- >> manu, sorry to interrupt. this is

contrast to past house hearings about the mueller report which didn't feature key witnesses like don mcgahn or paul manafort. if these witnesses could be devastating to trump note that the top republicans have boxed themselves in to supporting the potentially devastating hearings. maybe it is a case of be careful what you wish for. if everyone agrees the fair thing is to launch into these public impeachment hearings. not all republicans are focused on the process. trump has been demanding they get tougher in defending him and now key ally graham is pushing the senate to formally condemn the house impeachment probe adding this today about trump and the infamous ukraine call. >> he keeps telling us he did nothing wrong. he keeps telling me that the phone call was perfect. i'm saying, mr. president, the phone call was okay with me. >> all right. now when you read senator graham's actual brand-new resolution, i'm going to have it right here, it does not propose a law or even suggests the senate do anything. instead, what this does is criticize the house. in fact, if you flip to the end, only fi

ought to be thanking don mcgahn for keeping him within the boundaries of the law and refusing to carryat trump would issue. he instead belittles him. and poor jeff sessions who again also protected the president by not engaging in some of the behavior ordered to do. gets cruelly ridiculed, publicly humiliated, fired the minute that the congressional midterm elections were over, and they're all gone. he has no checks. >> no one was there to tell him, by the way, don't tell the president of ukraine to go investigate the bidens. >> again, one of the dramatic stories is you see someone like rod rosenstein who goes from being a relatively independent, respected prosecutor, something of a check, into one of these people who does whatever trump wants. and barr. is barr standing up to trump now? >> let's talk about rod rosenstein. you've described him having something tantamount to a meltdown during this process. let me read a clip from the book. this has to do with right after james comey was fired. as he talked, rosenstein flailed his hands and arms. at times got up and walked around the tan

there it's a little more difficult because congress never did get the chief witness in the charges, don mcgahn to testify before congress and they don't want to give any excuses for anybody to not support what they believe is a clear-cut case of an impeachable offense when it comes as well to obstruction. >> heidi, is there any indication in your reporting of what the process will be, how will the democrats arrive at a consensus of what the shape of the article should be? >> that's still really early, lawrence, and i must stress that in my reporting that while there is this big umbrella focus on the narrative of abuse of power, the speaker's office did caution me that the actual legal drafting of articles has not begun because they haven't collected all of the evidence yet and all the information but historically what would happen is that all of the committees would send in their best information. jerry nadler has called on all committees to send their best information to judiciary which would then be tasked with drawing up specific articles. but make no mistake, the speaker is going to be the