phil mattingly is on capitol hill. we don't usually do this but i don't usually get this kind of information that i can't process alone. phil, thank you for jumping up for me on this. what do we know about mr. holmes? >> we got a look at the ten-page opening statement on friday night and it was explosive and at various levels explicit as well. the one key thing that david holmes was unveiling to lawmakers was this launch he had with ambassador gordon sondland where he overheard gordon sondland call president trump and he overheard president trump talking explicitly about investigations and about the relationship between president trump and ukrainian president zelensky. we don't know how he was able to hear all of this and how is his recollection so crystal clear. i think there is a couple of things that are interesting here. he made sure they could hear president trump because president trump spoke so loudly that gordon sondland moved the phone from his ear. this was an extremely distinctive experience in my foreign ser

>> phil mattingly, thank you for that. >>> when the going gets tough, the president holds rallies. last night in louisiana, he tried to show his supporters he's not too concerned about impeachment. >> how about when they ask these two never-trumpers, what exactly do you think you impeach him for? and they stood there and went, what? >> you might recall the president said he didn't watch a minute of the testimony. he told the crowd, some members of the republican party want the hearings to go longer because it helps him politically. he told the audience it would be nice to see the hearings end. >>> there's a flag, as -- whoa. hello. >> whoa. >> you're looking at one ugly finish to an ugly nfl game. it started with eight seconds left in that game, when myles garrett of the cleveland browns, ripped the helmet off of mason rudolph and struck him in the head with that helmet. led to all kinds of kicking and punching in particular pr marquma from marquis pouncey of the stealers. expect fines and major suspensions. the browns won the game, 21-7. i heard heads of officiating. four games, i

back with me, phil mattingly, john dean, catherine rampell, and max boot. so, phil, the other testimony out tonight is state department official david hale. what are we learning? >> yes. one the things i've been struck by in reading more pages of depositions than i ever wanted to in the history of my life is how when you go through these depositions of individuals who may have worked together but didn't know each other that well, worked in different agencies, different parts of the government, how much specific details line up with one another. on this specific issue, david hale talking about the freeze of the u.s. security assistance to ukraine. he says, quote, and i advocated strongly for resuming the assistance as did every other agency represented there with the exception of one, which was the omb. and the question it asks, and did you have confidence that the aid would be ultimately released? he responded, well, omb said that when asked by someone, perhaps charles kupperman, who was the deputy national security adviser, they said they had guidance from

phil mattingly has more from capitol hill. >> i hope you're well-rested. well-fed, maybe have snacks ready. week two is going to be a slog. it will be a lot. it will be nine witnesses over the course of three days, starting with four over the course of two separate hearings. the first hearing, is two white house officials. one that works in the marble security office, and the other is alex crane. both of them testified in their closed-door depositions, they had concerns about trump's july 25th call with se len ske szele. particularly the kind of outside shadow that was run by rudy giuliani. these are two witnesses. curt volker, and tim morriston, a top hand on the national security council, are requests from republicans. curt volker, he says no quid pro quo. he raised concerns about the individuals involved with the policy. same goes for tim morrison. he made clear he was on the call. and made clear, various elements of the ukraine/u.s. policy, were problems in their roles. that's tuesday's hearing. i want to flash forward real quick. on thursday, a new in

phil mattingly is on capitol hill. sually do this but i don't usually get this kind of information that i can't process alone. phil, thank you for jumping up for me on this. what do we know about mr. holmes?

phil mattingly has more from washington. >> reporter: christine and dave, this is the last day or likely to be the last day of this stage of the public impeachment inquir inquiry. you have fiona hill and david holmes, who became famous less than a week ago, when he flew to the united states for a closed-door deposition, where he talked about a phone call he overheard between ambassador sondland and president trump, while in ukraine. they will testify publicly. there will be no shortage of questions from lawmakers. there's one thing to be certain, i mentioned gordon sondland. his testimony from wednesday will carry into today, as well. listen to this important moment. >> mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election dnc server and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states. >> reporter: for democrats, that sound, what gordon sondland said at the beginning of his testimony, was reaso

let's go straight to phil mattingly.ks and talk to house investigators? >> that's exactly right, wolf. mark sandy, a career official at the office of management and budget will attend a scheduled deposition on saturday if he is subpoenaed. that's according to his lawyer. to be clear most witnesses have been subpoenaed and the expectation is he will be subpoenaed and here's why this matters. one of the prime spots in the democratic investigation has been what actually occurred in the office of management and budget and the acting director and two other appointees have refused to comply with document requests or witness testimony requests, as well. therefore, at the center of the allegations this the idea that nearly $400 million in u.s. assistance to ukraine was withheld at the direction of the president through the acting chief of staff through the office of management and budget and there's been no view or window bo wh window into what omb was doing. as an official he worked inside the omb rising to a senior position. d

picture this, phil mattingly. looking ahead and what's happened in the last couple of days, not only keep republicans together, he may get support from some democrats when the full house votes on impeachment. you tell me. nervousness on behalf of speaker pelosi? her team? as they plot their next steps? >> short answer, no. they probably wouldn't appreciate kevin mccarthy trying to give his own accounts of the democratic caucus at this point in time. i say the answer is no because, one, public comments from the speaker, house committee chairman adam schiff. they're too far down the path. there's no turning back given the fact they had closed door depositions and public hearings. along those lines, they believe the evidence is there. talked to democrats um and down the board. for the most part believe they have enough evidence to move forward, don't have to wait for people like john bolton to win court cases and get people mike mick mulvaney in and his testimony. they believe the time is now and have enough to move

congressional reporter phil mattingly has more on capitol hill. >> christine and dave, here we go. this is it. this is what people have been waiting for the last month and a half. >> the public hearing, one official, two, one the top official in you crane. george kent, another foreign service office. you're going to see two very divergent strategies with clear goals in mind. paint the same picture behind closed doors. they believe that picture laying out exactly how the ukraine policy was working, laying out the rogue elements of the policy and all the stresses and pressure that were put on the policy. they want that out in public, live on television so the public can actually all see it for the republicans, they have made it clear, key reasons they don't believe any of the conduct laid out so far is impeachable, saying two that you'll hear from didn't have direct interactions from the president. here's how you're going to see it. when the committee gavels into session, you're going to hear opening statements frommed a an schiff and devin nunes and then two witnesses. after that th

i want to go to phil mattingly who's got -- all of us now have, phil, the transcript of the opening statement by this u.s. embassy official in ukraine, david holmes, who overheard a conversation between the president of the united states and the u.s. ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, at a restaurant in kiev in ukraine in which the president was talking -- the president was talking about his disdain in effect for ukraine. the only thing he really wanted, the only thing he wanted basically was an investigation by the ukrainians of the bidens. i want you to go ahead and for our viewers read that section of this transcript, of this opening statement from david holmes in which all of that is laid out. >> reporter: yeah, wolf, it is a 10-page opening statement. it was read word for word to members of the committee a short while ago. that deposition is still ongoing but the statement is both detailed and it is damning. to set the context, david holmes, a political counselor at the u.s. embassy in ukraine is talking about coming out of a meeting with ukrainian president zelensky. as

here's phil mattingly on capitol hill. >> christine and dave, if you paid close attention to tuesday'stimony, you may have heard a name come up repeatedly, gordon sondland, the u.s. ambassador to the eu. he testified behind closed doors and then had to testify. he actually presented to the ukrainian aides on september 1st when the vice president was in town. then you paid attention to others. multiple administration officials talking about someone had repeated contact with president trump, how sondland had ties with chief of staff mick mulvaney. you recognize there may be no one bigger than gordon sondland. now, there have been questions about his testimony. there are contradictions in his testimony, at least the contradictions behind closed doors. all of those will have to be answered. the real question, what is he going to say. the reality is nobody really knows. that's unsettling for republicans who some were hoping would be a strong defender of the president. they don't know what's coming. based on his closed door deposition, the democrats don't know what's coming either. it will b

. >> here's phil mattingly with more. >> reporter: it was the first hearing of many, a monumental hearing. this was the start of the impeachment i impeachment inquiry. leading to a house vote to impeach president trump. when you talk to democrats who were waiting for, lookin forward and now have the testimony of george kent, it painted the picture. it laid out the extent why there were things that were wrong in the trump administration. that was their goal of the hearing. if you talk to republicans, it would almost be as if you're looking through two different world views. take a listen. >> you did listen in on the call? >> i did not. >> you never talked to chief of staff mulvaney. >> i never did. >> you talked to him? >> there's no reason for it to come up. >> and president zelensky never made an announcement. and you're the star witness. you're the guy. based on this, based on -- i've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than that. >> are we to say that asking a foreign nation is a perk of the office of the presidency? i don't think we can allow that to be the new nor

here's phil mattingly. >> reporter: the lawmakers that had seen fiona hill's hearing, knew what they were bringing. that wasn't necessarily the case for everybody else, who got to see an individual who knew her subject matter, who was keenly aware of everything going on around her and had sharp criticisms, not just for the republicans on the committee of jurisdiction, the republicans who had pushed the idea that ukrainians had meddled in the election, but also for the ukrainians he served, especially when it became an irregular channel, a channel that was led by gordon sondland, who was operating out of normal lines when it came to ukraine policy within the united states. >> he was being involved in a domestic political errand. i said this is all going to blow up. and here we are. >> reporter: strong words. concise words for a problem that the democrats have been investigating for a series of weeks. that investigation is going to ramp up going forward. they're done with the hearing phase. now, comes the writing phase. staff will be drafting a report, in which point they will transmit

as for what to expect in the next 36 hours, here's phil mattingly onorter: christine an, lawmakers are arrive back in washington, fully cognizant they will have the biggest hearing in years. two witnesses that are testifying, william taylor, the official top diplomat to ukraine right now, who has given explosive behind-the-door testimony. one democrat i was talking to said this is an individual, straight out of central casting. who you would expect as a diplomat. that's who democrats want on the stand. the strategy is not to unearth things we've not seen in the depositio depositions. we've had thousands of pages of depositions. they want to make clear to the public, that there's a narrative that lays together how probl problemmatic that the u.s./ukraine policy was. that is the goal for democrats this week. republicans have made clear, they are coming to the hearings prepared. they have been preparing. trying to pick up holes they have seen in witness testimony. trying to make sure, that a lot of the witnesses, the three you're going to hear from, haven't gotten specific orders from pre

phil mattingly on the hill. we'll watch the calendar as it plays out. use, phil. he doesn't like the president's questions and attacking of the intelligence community. and yet just as we were winding down yesterday, he says this. >> an impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous, and it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. i've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. i also reject the notion that holding this view means supporting all the foreign policy choices we have been hearing about over these last few weeks. >> he, in fact, called is blundering. clearly no fan of what happened and how it happened, but if will hurd had said, i'm for impeachment, there might have been some who follow him because of his experience and he's on the committee. when you have someone like that saying, nope. that tells us where we are. >> he was pretty clear about where he's going to fall, and i do think that's the splitting the baby argument we'll hear from republicans. probably a couple in the h

democrats are clear that this is the only start. >> phil mattingly. thanks. >> methodical is the word. >> yeah. >> one that taylor says was quote "running contrary to the goals of long standing u.s. policies." that's key. mike quigley asked them both about who's calling the shots that on that regular channel? >> president trump wanted was done as what you described as an irregular channel and the chance to take on ukraine policy, is that correct mr. kent? >> that would be my understanding. >> ambassador? >> exactly. >> all right, with us ron browstein, good evening to all of you. michael, you had some interesting points on this especially democrats were rather in effective. where was that? >> the democrats keep on missing the basic point which is exhibit a is the transcript of the july call in which the president with words out of his own mouth said to the president of ukraine the relationship between us had been unequal, we have been giving you more than you have been giving us, there have, i have al fav f to ask you. that's in of itself is the abuse

cnn's phil mattingly is on capitol hill for us now. george kent makes very clear in his testimony he was not on board with what he described as president trump wanting ukraine to commit publicly to investigating the bidens. >> not on board, jake, and so unsettled august 16th he actually drafted a memo laying out concerns there was, quote, an effort to prosecutions. what he lays out jives a lot with what we've seen with other career diplomats, serious concerns about the administration policy often times being run ad hoc and outside of things. he was asked bluntly what was on his view of the requests to get a statement from ukrainian officials pledging investigations into political rivals of president trump. he said, quote, i do not believe the u.s. should ask other countries to engage in political investigations and prosecuions. the testimony in full more than 400 pages lays out a sweeping, systematic and damning view of the trump administration efforts as it comes to ukraine. most notably, he goes in depth to oust yovanovitch who was r

our congressional correspondent phil mattingly is joining us. adam schiff said the report will catalogue the white house and administration officials who refuse to comply with subpoenas. could the president potentially face an articles of impeachment for obstruction of congress. >> it is a near certainty at this point. one of the several articles they kick around as they continue to move forward, moving on to the next steps beyond just the house intelligence committee investigation into the judiciary committee where those articles of impeachment will be drafted. on the issue of obstruction, democrats have been clear, everybody who chooses not to come in and testify and not to respond to subpoenas in a way the house would want is now officially on the list to some degree. as adam schiff put it in a lengthy letter to his democratic colleagues today, quote, we'll be forced to infer from this obstruction that the testimony of these witnesses would tend to incriminate the president further since he woven couraged rather than blocked the testimony of

let's go first to phil mattingly, he is on capitol hill. so you have that, we're waiting for those. and two depositions that were scheduled for today does not appear again just like the four yesterday like those will happen, is that right? >> reporter: yeah, a little bit of a split screen here. you have the public aspect of things as things start to spill out, another two transcripts today, soon public hearings. but you still have the scheduled closed door depositions. and yesterday the individuals who were asked to come did not show up. today it will be the same according to people familiar with the process. wells griffith, a white house official, he has not shown up and it is past 9:00. and also michael duffy who was a key player in the decision to withhold nearly $400 million of aid to ukraine has not shown up either. i think what this all underscores is why you have seen the shift toward the public phase of things. there is recognition now that as they move up the chain and get closer to president trump, those individuals are deciding in line with the administration saying they

cnn congressional correspondent phil mattingly joins me with that part of the story. , the original deadline was this sunday. so what has changed? >> so believe it or not, the original deadlines holds but it was specifically tied to that wednesday hearing. the first hearing. when you look at this next phase it's important to note. the first hearing wednesday is largely a technical nuts and bolts hearing. constitutional experts coming in to testify on the panels talking about the history, precedent behind impeachment. the why it's utilized in the part and the shape of impeachment moving forward with the injury. this new letter is less about the first hearing and more about the impeachment inquiry on the whole, proceedenings going forward. specifically asking the white house not about wednesday's hearing, all-around. do you want to participate? if you participate, there are privileges the house rules laid out in late october would give the white house and the white house counsel, whoever the lawyer is they haven't named yet to actually participate. perhaps give a conclud

our phil mattingly has more on that. phil, it sounds like there might be wiggle room here for the white house. >> to some degree. there is two deadlines. there is a hearing next week and this is the next phase of the democratic impeachment inquiry. the house judiciary committee taking up what the house intelligence committee has done up to this point and that hearing a nuts and bolts and constitutional scholars coming up to testify and the white house still has a deadline as of sunday night as to whether or not they want to participate. what changed today or what is new today, chairman jerry nadler telling the white house if they want to participate at all at any point in the impeachment proceedings they need to reply yes by december 6th at 5:00 p.m. and that matters is this. the way the house impeachment rules were drafted, if the white house wants to participate and that includes asking questions of witnesses, submitting proposal for their own witnesses and giving a concluding statement, they have to tell the democrats

our congressional correspondent phil mattingly is here. we just saw jennifer williams walk in. not a name a lot of people know but becoming more and more central to all of this. what we are expecting to hear from her? >> when you talk to house investigators, sources familiar with what the house investigation is looking for here, there's a lot of import to jennifer williams' testimony. there's a reason why people on the democratic side are happy she's decided to testify under subpoena which her lawyer said she would do last night. she's obviously shown up. here's why she matters. she is a close aide to vice president mike pence. she's a career state department official who was detailed over to the vice president's office. has a special advise or european and russian affairs. why investigators have been very interested in her perspective on things is, as you noted, she was on that july 25th call between president trump and zelensky. sources say she had concerns about the content of that call. what's unclear is how far up the line she raised those concerns internally. but there's

phil mattingly, appreciate it.lier i spoke to congresswoman jackie speier, who sits on the intelligence committee. we talked about what we have heard so far from the witnesses, including about gordon sondland. congresswoman speier, i'm wondering what the most important thing to you was that came out of the hearings today. >> i think one of the most important things that came out of the hearing was that ambassador volker gave a very strong character support for vice president biden and the fact that everything he did as vice president in ukraine was consistent with the policies of our government. i would also say that mr. morrison's reluctance to come forward and say there was anything wrong with the phone call, but he went directly to the national security council lawyers after the call raises interesting questions. certainly lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony this morning was truly remarkable, and he made it very clear that he wasn't going to have a character assassination go on by the republican members and h

our congressional correspondent, phil mattingly is getting new information for us.t are you hearing from lawmakers about the next step forward? >> reporter: there's one thing lawmakers from both sides and inside the democratic caucus are sure of, there will be a vote to impeach donald trump. when will that happen? likely in a couple weeks. the public hearings in the impeachment inquiry phase are now complete. over the course of the next week the staff of the intelligence committee will be drafting a report laying out their findings. those findings will be transmitted to the house judiciary committee and where the actual impeachment hearings and articles of impeachment are expected to occur. should be some hearings during that process. bottom line, democrats are not waiting for administration officials or former administration officials they're willing to see to come testify. they said no up to this point. senator nancy pelosi makes clear there is no rope a dope ahead and there will likely be a vote coming to impeach president trump. at this time, there have been no

we want to take a look at that with phil mattingly. >> reporter: senator ron johnson isn't just a trumply. >> that's president trump being president trump. i don't see anything impeachable about that. >> reporter: as a leader on u.s./ukraine policy he's emerged as a player in the investigation. >> he was in the ukraine. he talked to president zelenski. >> i'm chairman of the senate foreign relss committee. i've made six trips to ukraine. >> reporter: johnson attended the ukrainian president's inauguration with five other representatives including gordon sondland, ambassador to the eu. two months later was the infamous call to the president where according to the transcript he asked zelenski to look into the bidens. >> i put in a call to find out what's happened because he was involved. he was part of the delegation for the inauguration. that's when he was talking about something potentially in the works. if ukraine does something, the funding will be released. >> reporter: in other words what democrats now allege was a quid quo pro. johnson was concerned and the next day set up a call w

we have phil mattingly on capitol hill for this story. phil, tell us what you're hearing. >> yeah. so as of now, there has been no public statement as to what the next step is for house democrats. but here's what we can tell you is going on behind the scenes. at this moment and throughout the course of next week, than thanksgiving week, house intelligence staff are drafting a report of their findings based on the public hearings we've seen at this point. they will give that to the judiciary committee where they will start to draft articles of impeachment. impeachment is happening, that's one thing for sure. everyone acknowledges that's happening. the timeline they lay out is probably a committee markup of articles of impeachment in the second week of december, and probably a vote on the house floor to impeach president trump on at least several articles of impeachment before christmas. that's the timeline they're working on right now. that's the way things are moving, and it's very clear they are moving quickly. one of the wild cards here everybody has been talking about is there a

let's begin with congressional correspondent phil mattingly. let's start with what we are learning as we fill in the time line on the next stems of this impeachment process. >> reporter: yes, this is moving forward. it's moving forward at a fast pace. one of the interesting things, we've seen new transcripts and the "new york times" reporting last night the house democrats who are working through this impeachment inquiry made clear the investigation portion, while they are taking in information is mostly over. it is now onto the house judiciary committee. next wednesday they will hold the first hearing. this is largely a nuts and bolts hearing. they've will have them come in and talk about history related to impeachment and how it may apply to president trump in this specific case. but it is a part of the process that makes clear. the judiciary committee is moving forward. >> that is where articles of impeachment will be drafted. >> that is the next step before things end up on the house floor, to actually hold a full house vote to impeach the

it's one of the open questions we've had throughout the course of this process. >> cnn's phil mattingly reporting from washington. with the next round of public hearings set for next week, democrats are renewing their calls for top administration officials to testify. cnn's jim acosta has that. >> reporter: any response to jerry nadler? >> reporter: leaving the white house to spend thanksgiving in florida, president trump ignored questions about what's waiting for him after his holiday break. house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler's plans for new hearings in the impeachment inquiry. while acknowledging in a tweet that he stalled military aid to ukraine as part of that alleged deal to get dirt on joe biden the president indicated he's not ready to allow top officials to testify in front of house democrats, tweeting that his former national security adviser john bolton is a patriot and may know that i held back the money from ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country. likewise i would love to have secretary of state mike pompeo, energy secretary rick perry, and acting ch

cnn correspondent phil mattingly is here.rter from the "wall street journal" will join us. i don't know, the white house. so much testimony and revised testimony from a trump appointee, a total trump loyalist saying there was a quid pro quo. still explain the white house strategy to me saying no quid pro quo? >> yeah, i don't think i'm of the position to explain white house strategy to anybody right now. i think what i was smiling about when you came out, what you ran through is you now have a good understanding of why republicans on the hill quietly have been frustrating. they are not getting information. yesterday mike pence was in a closed door lunch with senate republicans. he happened on two things, one, this is a very partisan investigation, stay with our team. don't go to their team. this is a democratic driven issue. two, stick with the transcript. the president's transcript of the call, the july 25ing calm. that's what you should focus on, not anything else. you talk to republicans, they're frustrated saying stuff ke

our congressional correspondent phil mattingly is watching the developments. the impeachment inquiry is about to enter a critically important new phase. will the president participate in this new round of hearings? >> reporter: if past is any precedent, that seems unlikely but that doesn't mean a representative from the president won't come in and testify. look, this is an interesting element because that is a new phase. they're moving into the now nuts and bolts of impeachment starting in the judiciary committee. the first hearing is about precedence and the history of impeachment and have a number of constitutional scholars come in and testify and also invited the president or his counsel. now this was long expected to be the case. based on the a resolution house democrats passed that the president or a representative could not only attend the hearing, they could participate in the hearing. they could ask questions and also give a concluding statement or presentation at the end of the hearing. one thing we know for a fact at this point in time there will lik

phil mattingly thanks very much. nine witnesses testifying publicly this week holmes included. two of them facing tough questions likely about why key portions of their accounts differ from most of the others. all of them potentially facing fresh twitter wrath from the president. and sources familiar with the matter tell us the ones who work on assignment at the white house might see careers hurt or at least moved out of the white house and back to their home departments at the behest of the president. there's that and gnaw reporting -- new reporting on the impact of holmes' testimony. according to one source several gop hill lawmakers were, quote more shaken by david holmes' testimony than they publicly let on. behind closed doors our source tells us many expressed frustration that he would place a call to the president from a public restaurant in ukraine and are concerned about the testimony regarding president trump's direct involvement in the campaign to pressure ukraine. he was just added as a witness today, the final one of the week. we have folks going over his testimony

cnn's phil mattingly starts us off tonight. explain what else holmes had to say in his testimony today. >> reporter: yeah, anderson. it's worth noting. david holmes, political counsel at the u.s. embassy in ukraine. a detailed statement that goes through a number of things. not just the explosive meeting on wednesday but also details about his concerns and the concerns of others in his office about the withholding of u.s. security aid including the possibility that john bolton thought a meeting with trump and making president trump happy was the only way it could be released but also goes into detail about some of the issues they were facing that you heard a lot about today from marie yovanovitch and that is specifically related to rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney. at one point in his testimony, he says, quote, someone wondered aloud why mr. giuliani was so active in the media with respect to ukraine. my recollection is that ambassador sondland stated, damn it, rudy, every time rudy gets involved, he goes and f'

our correspondent phil mattingly is joining us. what is the latest? >> reporter: wolf, lieutenant colonel vindman testified that twice he went to white house lawyers over concerns related to the actions being taken related to ukraine. we know according to a source familiar with his testimony earlier this week that the second of those occasions when he was concerned about the july 25th phone call between president trump and the ukraine president bringing that to knopp national security counsel lawyer john eisenberg and told not to discuss anything about that call with anyone. this was as he took these concerns to a lawyer. now, wolf, this tracks from something we heard from a witness yesterday, tim morrison who testified that he wasn't concerned there was something wrong with the call and a top russia official at the white house and he was concerned about leaking and that is a widespread concern and there was widespread concern about how the call would look. all underscoring that as we've seen weeks of testimony coming through a series of closed-door d

i want to bring in phil mattingly, and phil, you have been looking at excerpts of the transcript fromfor ukraine negotiations. what are you seeing? >> reporter: there is a lot of attention paid rightfully so to gordon sondland's deposition, and we're reading through that. he was intimately involved with what president trump, rudy giuliani and others were doing as well. but kurt volker provides a fascinating window into how rudy giuliani had arose to be such a central figure and how this all worked, at one point talking about a meeting with the president where the president made clear that people needed to talk to rudy. but it worked in other ways, too, including one portion of the transcript saying the ukranians reached out to him to set up a meeting. he was asked why was that the case? and he said because rudy giuliani would convey that information to the president, presumably, correct? volker was asked that and responded, yes, that's the case. volker went on to say he set up a july 19 phone call to president zelensky and rudy giuliani. he didn't have much to say about that call exce

phil mattingly on capitol hill. phil, a big day. let us know about the strategies. >> reporter: i think there is unusual recognition across party lines of the gravity of the moment. we've seen hearings the last couple years turn into youtube-made moments for campaigns. this is not that. there is a recognition for both democrats and republicans, whether it's closed door meetings, whether it's lengthy memos, whether it's walking through how this process will actually work that they recognize the stakes here. i want to start with the democrats. first and foremost, the democrats' talked to say what they've heard behind closed doors they believe is enough for an impeachable offense. the one tomorrow, the one on friday will paint that picture, the one they saw behind closed doors and walk through in an orderly fashion. not being repeatedly interrupted but actually walk through why they thought there was significant problems with the ukraine-u.s. policy, why there were concerns with what rudy giuliani was doing and why these various indivi

let's bring in alex and phil mattingly, both working the story for us. phil, you're up on capitol hill. you go first. you're combing through this newly released testimony. >> nearly 400 pages of depositions and one from laura cooper, two from the state department. kathryn and chris andersen, state department officials and curt voelker, special representative to ukraine. what you draw from this testimony is how they're all painting a consistent picture we've seen over the course of deposition after deposition. what laura cooper, the pentagon official does, is give a perspective how unsettled the u.s. government was about withholding of nearly $400 impeachable in u.s. security assistance to ukraine. cooper laying out how the u.s. defense department was concerned whether it was legal. they were told by the office of management and budget it had been frozen but couldn't find out what the rationale was, something that made people in the united states and embassy of ukraine find out what's happening. there is one thing laura cooper lays out a new detail and tal

phil mattingly is there. first and foremost, what are you hearing jennifer williams is behind closed doors. what are you hearing about her testimony and how he fits into this entire thing? >> i think it's the latter part to point out. jennifer williams did show up. she showed up at 9:30 a.m., and the reason is to paint the whole picture of what was going on. find ago many people as they can involved in key elements of the investigation to fill in the picture. jennifer williams, as you noted is a national security aide to vice president pence, but she's a career state department employees. she was detailed to the vice president's office. she was on the july 25th call where sources say she had concerns about that call. it's unclear if she raised any of those concerns internally, but the concerns existed. another key meeting she attended was september 1st, the meeting between vice president pence and ukrainian president zelensky. after that meeting, the u.s. ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland testified that $

cnn's phil mattingly joins us with more on that what will this next phase of hearings look like, phil? >> reporter: this is an interesting and very important piece is they are moving forward. even though there are new revelations, seemingly, even though there are details that they want. the fact that they are moving to the judiciary committee makes clear they are on a time line to impeach president trump by christmas and the reality is articles of impeachment are coming very soon. here's what will happen. these first couple hears, one for sure are scheduled are nuts and bolts, the historical impeachment. how things worked in the past. they will have constitutional experts coming up and testifying. the interesting element in this all the judiciary hearings going forward, the president and his lawyer are invited to attend, not only to intend, they're invited to participate as well, they can ask questions, giving a closing presentation based on the resolution passed two months ago, the question is will they? nobody knows the answer, jerry nadler sent a letter to the president yesterday i

phil mattingly is watching all this unfold. this was to democrats first chance to make the impeachment case to the american people. did today's testimony make an impact? >> reporter: i've been talking to democrats and republicans the better part of the last hour in the hearing and it will shock you both are declaring victory and think it was a great daytor them. let me cut through that to the bottom line. to democrats talking to them and their advisors was lay the groundwork and the scope how ukraine operated and the policy and they used these two diplomats to do just that. in that sense they believe they accomplished what they set out to do. there's points multiple democrats made to me. this was the first of many, the start of the process. this wasn't the big show, the biggest hearing, the start of the process. they wanted to lay the groundwork for hearings to come. it's those hearings to come they're paying attention to. first, ambassador gordon sondland. his name came up several times. he is the one witnesses are referring t

. >> soon, phil mattingly will have more sleepless nights, not because of babies at home but because of your job. great to see you, thank you so much. >>> joining me now a former prosecutor elly honig and samantha vinagrad. i would like to go into ruling on my math papers on this table because it's a lot. and it's really interesting. from the judge with regard to the don mcgahn ruling. stated simply, the primary take away from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings. which obviously his own words fact checked that. he says he wanted them to investigate joe biden. >> certainly, also he's making the claim that he is really worried about the office of the presidency and his successors. it's not something potus has been concerned with or he would have for example not abused power and not abused his national security council and the department of justice to do his own bidding. as you mentioned, kate, he specifically cites ambassador bolton and he makes a compelling witness. he says bolton may know why he held up aid to ukraine. as you mentioned he

phil mattingly, paul kaine with the "washington post."w a timeline as we get new reporting and new transcripts. number one, the president pushed aside his ambassador in ukraine when he didn't like the resistance to his policy. a career official sandy mark sandy raises concerns with a senior omb official in the middle of july about is this legal, can we do this. july 30th, 12 days after sandy raised some concerns, a political aide michael duffy takes over the process. duffy signs documents holding up the aid. the white house will say nothing wrong here, we just decided to have michael duffy take over. but if you track what happened with ambassador yovanovitch and the career people being shoved aside in the earlier dispute, here's another case where somebody raises his hand, says i think this is wrong and a political person comes in and does what the president wants. >> and this new revelation by the "new york times" that the president was actually aware of the whistleblower complaint, which begs the question would they have released the ai

. >> thank you, phil mattingly. >>> one official offering a details damning account of a quid pro quo. alex is joining us right now. the transcript of bill taylor's closed door deposition is now out. >> it is very long, hundreds of pages long. in page after page of this transcript taylor makes it clear he did feel there was a quid pro quo. taylor told lawmakers in his testimony he hesitated to take this job as the u.s. senior diplomat in kiev because he had heard what rudy guiliani was up to in ukraine. during his time there he took meticulous notes and repeatedly described what he called an irregular channel with ukrainians led by guiliani, in the end, to get ukraine to meddle in the 2020 presidential elections. it's among the most explosive testimonies yet in the impeachment inquiry. in the deposition of ambassador bill taylor, the most senior official on the ground gave his perspective. he said it was his clear understanding security assistance money would not come until president of ukraine came. and i came to understand the policy channel i had come to understand was guided by ru

first, to phil mattingly on capitol hill. what are you learning about the next step in the impeachment process. >> reporter: while lawmakers are working on impeachment inquiry continues and staff continue to write a report on findings of a series of public hearings and closed door depositions. once done with that they will transmit it to the house judiciary committee who will hold hearings of its own talking about the process of impeachment and process of drafting it. the reality is house democrats are moving forward quickly and without the testimony of some key officials so far up to this point resisted coming in. that's a key point. while some people asked why not wait, those officials will form in and of themselves will form the basis of impeachment themselves. obstruction, it's likely they're moving forward and looks like their target could be the week of christmas, the week before christmas to have a floor house vote to impeach the president of the united states. >> you're learning lawmakers received a highly classified

phil mattingly is live on capitol hill. and, phil, you already have a large number of former and current officials who have testified now under oath. but a number of seeming to heed the white house here, refusing to come. >> yeah, i think a good way to look at this is the closer these individuals are to the president, the less likely it is that they're going to come in and actually testify. now today you have two people that were cued up for closed door depositions. one is a member of the nsc, wells griffith who worked on energy issues and another member of the omb, michael duffy, considered a key player in the decision or signing off on the decision to withhold that funding from ukraine. the expectation right now is that neither is going to show up. omb officials have made clear none of them are going to show up throughout this process saying as many in the administration have that the process is illegitimate. we haven't heard a definitive answer from wells griffith, but the expectation is that he's not going to show up eit

i want to go to phil mattingly who's got -- all of us now have, phil, the transcript of the opening statement overheard a conversation between the president of the united states and the u.s. ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, at a restaurant in kiev in ukraine in which the president was talking -- the president was talking about his disdain in effect for ukraine. the only thing he really wanted, the only thing he wanted basically was an investigation by the ukrainians of the bidens. i want you to go ahead and for our viewers read that section of this transcript, of this opening statement from david holmes in which all of that is laid out. >>

start with phil mattingly up on capitol hill our congressional correspondent there. phil, also have a preview of the main defense the republicans plan to use starting with the phone call between president trump and president zelensky. >> reporter: republicans talking process. now clearly moving into substance pap reality they're grasping the stakes are huge and everybody needs to come together on their side and provide a unified agraeement what democras are saying. 18 pages laying out what they think democrats are doing. walk you through the interesting points. all have a threat. it's almost a straight-line defense of the president. if x wasn't said x could not have been meant. take the first piece they're pointing to. july 25th phone call between president trump and president zelensky. they say in their memo that call doesn't show conditionality of evidence or pressure from president trump. the context here is important. we've seen reams of testimony from people who are involved in the u.s./ukraine policies leading up to that phone call lengthy negotiations about ukr

phil mattingly. a second trump administration official also refused to show up today. how does this shape the public testimony that we're going to hear and see next week? >> reporter: jake, all systems go was the message i got from a democratic lawmakers working on these committees investigating this a short while ago. in other words, the public hearings will go forward, the process go forward and you'll see mick mulvaney name from democrats in a draft for impeachment. the white house white house directed them to have come in and they will end up if kniss-oknisthis sphere. three witnesses expected to testify next week and all pointed to mick mulvaney's role. heard a discussion mick mulvaney's role as laid out by fiona hill related to a specific deliverable for a white house meeting's that being investigations according to eu ambassador gordon sondland and mick mulvaney's direct real to suspend u.s. security asivsistae to ukraine. what occurred, and what democratic lawmakers want and say they need. that said, they've made clear they're moving forward no matter what. any

as for what to expect in the next 36 hours, here's phil mattingly on capitol hill. >> reporter: christine and dave, lawmakers are arrive back in washington, fully cognizant they will have one of the biggest hearings that's happened in years, maybe in decades. the first official impeachment hearing. the first public impeachment hearing related to donald trump. two witnesses that are testifying, william taylor, the official top diplomat to ukraine right now, who has given explosive behind-closed-door testimony. we've seen the deposition, we've read through the key points. one democrat i was talking to said this is an individual, straight out of central casting. exactly who you would expect from a service officer to diplomat. that's who democrats want on the stand. the strategy is not to unearth things we've not seen in the depositions. we've had thousands of pages of depositions. i think everybody's eyes are tired by now. they want to make clear to the public, that there's a narrative that threads together how problematic that the u.s./ukraine policy was. how the president and his team were