fiona hill was his deputy. i believe he recruited her to run russia for donald trump.donald trump is already under investigation by the mueller team when john bolton joined this white house. colonel vindman smeared by fox new hosts and donald trump and ores. i'm disappointed in people i knew all the time and john bolton could have hung out on twitter and worked on the book. >> he has something he wants the country to know. and look. i think the other thing about john bolton is he's been in the public eye and the center of the arena. he is a tough guy. he is not going to be intimidated, not going to be victimized by the smears, by public servant who s who have n been under the lights before. he is a tough customer and a different type of foe for donald trump in this and i think it's also true that it's politically untenable for these republican senators in contested races, in close races, to say that we don't want to hear from john bolton, that we don't want to know whether incriminates the president. it is a tough vote for them to take and i think lisa murkowski certai

however, one of his key deputies, fiona hill, did testify in the house impeachment inquiry. they said, this is trump being trump. sure, he brought up joe biden, maybe he wasn't articulate, but it wasn't an abuse of power. fiona hill said she and her boss thought it was. >> john bolton told me that i am not part of this whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> isn't it now incumbent, if we care about transparency, and if you care about this issue, that the senate should subpoena john bolton, say, what did you mean by drug deal, sir, let's get it firsthand. you were in the room with the president. what did you mean by drug deal? >> this is going to make it so much harder for mcconnell to say no witnesses. fiona hill also said john bolton was the one who instructed her to go to the white house counsel and tell them this is going on. he clearly thought

we have heard fiona hill talk about what she said john bolton said to her and could be more or things hill didn't know about what bolton was thinking or what he had access to. >> yeah. that's absolutely right. we know that he directed her to speak to lawyers at the national security council about what her concerns were in terms of the quote/unquote drug deal you mentioned at the start of your program and did bolton talk to anyone, lawyers or otherwise, himself about that, what conversations did he have with the president that, you know, were in a smaller group? we did learn about a meeting we hadn't heard about previously in recent -- in the last week. there's a meeting in the oval office with president trump and the secretary of defense, secretary of state and john bolton and he not only saw and was right there for a lot of the thing that is we do know and this is a firsthand account and potentially could talk about a lot of things we don't yet know. >> carol, thank you for your reporting on this. >> thank you. >>> joining me now is someone with over 20 years of experience, who also

look, he's a central figure and he ought to testify. >> and he apparently said to fiona hill it was a drug deal. the bangor daily news says susan collins says she's working with a small group of republicans to see that witnesses can be called in the impeachment trial. i guess it would take four republicans. do you get the impression there are enough republicans she could bring to that point of view? >> it's possible. this is kind of the game it feels like we play a lot. like susan collins is going to come in and save the day. >> she's like john bolton. the female john bolton. >> another rorschach test. but i think it will be difficult. you know, when it comes to something like impeaching the president of the united states, it's very different than being somebody who is maybe a critic or dissents on something versus actually playing a role in trying to impeach the president of your own party. so i know there's a lot of hope that there are a few republicans that would be willing to do that, but i think that i'm not holding my breath. and i think that at the same time a trial without wit

zds because as you mentioned, what we know just from what fiona hill said, right? but there's a lot more we want to know. what other questions would democrats, would really any on the up and up investigate? >> i might caution here that while the democrats are eager to hear from bolton, don't forget who john bolton is. he is a true conservative. he is a conservative on foreign policy. clearly the president and he have no love lost, obviously, but this is a difficult situation for john bolton who wants to have a career after this among conservatives, and so how is john bolton going to handle testifying this way in a way that perhaps might put the president in a bad light? i mean, it was the sort of i quit, you're fired when he left, and he lately had been praising the president on his moves with iran. >> that's right, because he's very hardline on iran. >> right. >>> now the crisis unfolding in the u.s. and iran after a i am. declaring war on cultural sites, that's actually considered a war crime to do so. >>> and nancy pelosi limiting authority on iran and the presi

when jay sekulow says we'll bring in fiona hill and morrison in this person. you have the sole power to try this case in two views this process. we gave each side 24 hours to make their arguments we will give each side a shared week to call their witnesses. if you didn't you can of constricted the amount of time and likewise determine how much time should be taken for witness testimony. >> mr. jay sekulow ended his argument against witnesses with where mr. philbin essentially began it all comes back to dershowitz. if the president can do under article two. was a point of calling witnesses and article two. the only constraining principle what is the limiting principle in the dershowitz argument if the president can seek foreign interference in the election that he believes his election is in the national interest then you cannot impeach him how damaging it may be what is the limiting principle and i suppose it's only this. it only requires the president to believe the reelection is in the national interest. and word require and extraordinary level of self refle

fiona hill interacted with all the players at the center of the ukraine scandal. the meetings at the center of the scandal. because of her position, top russian official at the whoulit house just put her at the center of the drama, she ended up being at the center of the inquiry. here's something to wash for now. when fiona hill left her job last summer she was replaced in that job by tim morrison, seen here also giving critical testimony in the impeachment inquiry. tim morrison lasted less than four months at that job. he quit literally the night before he gave his first closed door impeachment testimony. he walked into that deposition and announced, surprise, he had resigned from the white house the previous night. well, after that in november that job, the top russia job on the national security council at the white house, went to a new guy. mr. peak had been at the state department before moving over to the white house. he has been in this job less than three months after morrison was there for less than four months. but on friday this weekend he was reportedl

fiona hill in the dramatic final day of testimony said i realized when gordon was testifying, gordon sondland, there wasn't an ireegialer channel. there was just ahato, quote, ge investigate. i think there was a false hood of a mixing official president. it was only donald trump's political efforts. all of it was this corrupt, second tier channel as the letter proves by parnas and all these people in this pyramid of weirdos. they're out of the state department chain. all the claims are just flatly wrong. they were the ones trying to figure out where this outside influence is coming from. i think this is not the last thing we're going to see. i always describe the trump situation as a fickle iceberg. you're always going to find more and more of these things. this evidence that's come up out, it points a lot of things directly. one of the people listed in the parnas notes is a guy named balered. you and i both know, hiz employee who is a ballard partedner's employee is in the white house running the impeachment defense. the parnas things are like a rosetta stone to the entire affair. i

fiona hill, in july of 2019 also reported the call to national security council lawyers. after the call, president trump continue to push this the scher work. on july 26, the very next day ambassador sondland and ambassador taylor met with president zelensky, and other ukrainian officials in kiev. according to david holmes, the ukraine-based u.s. u.s. diplomat who served as a notetaker, the ukrainian leader mentioned that president trump have brought up some very sensitive issues. during the july 25 call. very sensitive issues. ambassador sondland then had a private meeting with andriy yermak, president zelensky's top aide. the two men insisted that the meeting be one on one with no notetaker, perhaps due to the sensitive issues that might come up. ambassador sondland testified that he and presidente zelenskys aid probably discussed the issue of investigations. after these key moments in ukraine ambassador sondland went to lunch with david holmes and two other american officials. mr. holmes set directly across from ambassador sondland close enough to hear the details of a

for questions asked of fiona hill about a conversation fiona hill has with the president of the united, the president's counsel isn't there to exert executive privilege. you are requiring fiona hill or her to me to do that for her. the last point, if a member of the republicans were try to exert executive privilege, guess how adam schiff ruled every time in closed-door depositions? every time there was an objection, he always ruled in his own favor. >> bret: last thing, congressman, do you know, are there efforts behind the scenes to talk to some of the republicans who may be considering witnesses to prevent them from doing that? >> some of the republican senators, that is? >> bret: yeah, the moderates who may consider voting for witnesses after these opening arguments happen. >> i'm sure that conversation will be had. the first thing structurally on the legal argument is that the house managers failed in their presentation to the senate to actually allege that violation of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. and then the senate as a deliberative body whether you ar

and john bolton may know more than that which fiona hill c observed.e may have been involved in other people. he seems likely to be a person with a lot of information. i think this is one more piece that adds to the scale that may tip the ball lanance as we see and more, the reporting about emails that suggests that there is more information out there that could be useful in deciding whether the president could be removed from office. i think it's a piece that weighs down the scale. at some point, there may be enough to do it. >> look how much money president trump has been able to raise during this impeachment process. while we could look at the emails, unredacted emails and say wow, is it really tipping the scales? >> i don't know. i mean, if ultimately the senators get enough pressure from their home constituents, then that's all it needs, and all you need is four senators to change their minds. it's a house majority rule to decide whether to issue the subpoenas and so at the moment they have 53 votes. if you can shake loose even a few, that could m

to your point about fiona hill, the official channel of ukraine was the shakedown. i'm thinking my god, what else am i going to be held responsible for? and still, they will vote to acquit him. >>> ashley parker, if you had told me mike pence and john bolton would be figures on the chess board at one point turned against donald trump? i would have never believed it. i remember all the drama. mike pence has been this loyal soldier. he's been careful and his press people are a lot more skilled and careful than donald trump's press people. but lev parnas threw pence under the bus. do we have that? anyway, lev parnas also made clear the decision by the vice president not to go to zelensky's inauguration was part of the pressure campaign. they were withholding the pence visit, any elevating of zelensky until they got what they wanted, which was the investigation to hurt the bidens and investigation into 2016. any word from team pence today? >> a little bit. mike pence's chief of staff released a short statement, which is fairly undercutting the credibility of lev parnas.

today was former white house advisor and role that's going to finally win laurie metcalf an oscar, fiona hill. hill grew up in england and came into the hearing with a reputation for not suffering fools lightly. once a boy in her class set one of her pigtails on fire while she was taking a test. she put the fire out with her hands, then finished the test. oh my gosh! ( cheers and applause ) >> jon: that's fierce! >> stephen: that is tough! that is tough! you don't mess with that. >> jon: don't mess with her. >> stephen: she is a terror in pigtails. forget pippi longstocking, she's pippi ass-kicking. ( cheers and applause ) the first butts she booted this morning were republicans who insist on floating bizarre conspiracy theories about the 2016 election. >> based on questions and statements i have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country, and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services

here's how top russian expert fiona hill testified about pressuring ukraine. >> ambassador bolton told me i am not part of this -- what i have a drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cook up. >> did your boss ambassador bolton tell you that giuliani was, quote, a hand grenade? >> he did, yes. >> bolton's willingness to testify gives democrats a big boost and puts pressure on senator mcconnell to allow witnesses at the impeachment trial. >> the senate has a unanimous bipartisan precedent for when to handle midtrial questions such as witnesses in the middle of the trial. >> if any senate republican poses issuing subpoenas to the four witness and documents we've requested, they would make it absolutely clear they're participating in a cover-up. >> of course none of this means bolton is actually close to testifying, but a handful of key republican senators dodged questions on monday about whether they'd back the subpoena for bolton. utah senator mit romney told reporters he does want to hear from bolton to find out what he knows, but he did not commit to a subpoena for bolton. what'd we

if he called this a drug deal and he ordered fiona hill to go to john issenberg, we know his testimonyill not help the president. plus, i'm not the lawyer here but i do know that privilege is not a shield against corruption. if he said to the president, look, what you're doing is wrong and i may have to quit over it, that's not advise. it's not a conversation about policy. that's not going to stand up to executive privilege that the president is trying to extend to bolton. >> the senate has conducted 15 impeachment trials in its 231 year history and it's heard witnesses in every single one. is there any legal argument to not call witnesses? >> there's no strong legal -- you can always make a legal argument but in the president johnson impeachment trial in the 1860s, they had 41 witnesses. 41. i got to tell you this, if they don't have any witnesses in this impeachment trial, when the history books are written, it will be the biggest sham, the biggest con imposed on the american people in the history of our country. my goodness graces can you have maybe five witnesses. there's probably

. >> and abbey, to remind people what trump's former adviser fiona hill testified to withholding thethe ukrainians to do the investigations as a drug deal. >> you tell eisenberg, and ambassador bolton said that i am not part of whatever drug deal mulvaney and sundelaondland are cooking up. >> what did you take that to mean? >> that investigations for a meeting. >> did you go to speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> could we expect that the republicans don't want to hear from john bolton? >> it is clear that what fiona hill is saying that john bolton underhim to have a clear quid pro quo and one that he thought was improper enough that he told her go to the lawyer, and that is who she is referring to there, eisenberg who is the white house lawyer. and so yes, john bolton has key direct information about all of this and he is someone who is saying on the record for everyone to hear, yes, i am willing to testify and all you have to do so ask me to basically, and i think that mcconnell not going to say, oh, yes, absolutely, we will have witnesses, but he is going to be under some

in a june 18th, 2019, meeting, sondland informed doctor fiona hill that he was in charge of ukraine. and he had been briefing senior white house officials including mister mulvaney about is efforts to take a mystic for -- political errand in ukraine. here's doctor hill explaining this herself. >> i was upset with him that he did not tell us about the meetings he was having. he said to me i am briefing the president, chief of staff mulvaney, secretary pompeo, ambassador bolton, who will still have to deal with? the point is we have a robust interagency process as it deals with ukraine including mister holmes and ambassador taylor. .. lot of other people but it struck me yesterday when you put up on screen ambassador sondland e-mails that he says this is what he developed you are absolutely right because he has been involved in a domestic political event and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things have justcu diverged. >> and there's more. much more. president trump's national security adviser at the time, john bolton, told dr. fiona hill to tell

. >> why is it that colonel vindman who worked for fiona hill, who worked for john bolton and dr. cupperman -- why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? they risked everything, their careers, and yes i know what you're asked to decide may risk yours, too, but if they could show the courage so can we. >> of course it's still an open question if there'll be four republicans joining democrats to call for more witnesses and documents. now, president trump's side begins making their arguments on saturday. so today a full discussion about the law and about the constitution. this trial could last at least one more week or longer if those witnesses come forward. christine and laura. >> all right, jeff zeleny, thanks so much the impeachment saga now following joe biden to iowa. top senate democrats are trying to top down the idea they would call bidens son hunter to testify in exchange for appearances by top trump administration officials. biden was asked if he'd consider testifying. >> the reason why i would not make t

that was fiona hill. she acknowledged a ukrainian officials were doing that. if you mentioned the ukraine and you are just doing vladimir putin's bidding, that's totally false and you shouldn't be fooled by that. various ukrainians were doing things to interfere in the election campaign on that is where president trump was referring to. >> senator from vermont? >> mr. chief justice, i would ask to send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator blumenthal, to the house managers. >> thank you, senator. >> the question from the house managers of senator leahy and senator blumenthal. the president's council claimed "if the president does something he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." he added a hypothetical. that cannot be an impeachable offense." under this view there is no remedy to prevent a president from conditioning foreign security assistance in violation of the control act and the recipient's willingness to do the president a political favor. if the

doctor fiona hill was clear with saying the white house meeting with supply the ukrainian government the legitimacy it needed especially the russians in ukraine viewed the white house meeting as a recognition of their legitimacy as aia sovereign state. but here's what they did not play. here's what they did not tell you. and i'm going to quote from doctor hill's testimony on page 145 of her transcript. these are her words, this is what she said under oath. it was not always the white house meeting per se definitely a presidential level meeting. meeting with zelensky and the president. it could've taken place and poland, or warsaw,th or prior under bilateral other contacts, but in other words a white house level presidential meeting that can be found on page 145. . . . actually found on page 145. contrary to what schiff and the other managers told you, this meeting did in fact occur. it occurred at the un general assembly on september 20 fifth 2019. those with the words of dr. hill that you did not hear. this case is really not about the president wrongdoing. this entire impeachment p

fiona hill went to congress. i have said it a hundred times. john bolton needs to go to congress or a microphone, even if it doesn't change the result in the senate. this can be a part of the national record. and it just is going to set up a terrible moment if the book comes out and has more glaring indictments of donald trump and look. republicans, graham already said, i don't care what's in "the new york times" record. we can scrutinize the republicans who apparently vote to acquit for whatever reasons from rubio to murkowski to blackburn they come up with. >> our lines are open, mr. bolton. michael steele? >> they are open. so, there are a lot of little pieces here. i think that the congressman really encapsulates all of the pieces as to where we are because the end result will be what the end result is but the bolton piece is fascinating to me from the standpoint that you made the point, joyce, most people -- here's the real hot, juicy stuff and he is coming around the other way. now that i have your attention, here's one more piece. here's

so, that was fiona hill. there was also evidence in the record from political articles in 2017. it listed a whole bunch of ukrainian officials who have done things to try to help the clinton campaign and the dnc and to harm the trump campaign. in addition, to news organizations, both politico and the financial times, did their own investigative reporting, and the financial times concluded that the opposition to president trump led to the wide leadership to do something they would never have attempted before, to intervene, however indirectly come in a u.s. election of the financial times. so the idea that there is no evidence whatsoever of ukrainians doing anything to interfere is just not true. they say it again and again and just is not true. the other thing i would like to point out, manager schiff keeps suggesting somehow we are coming here saying one thing and the department of justice is saying something else about litigation that is also not true. we have been very clear every time the position of the administration like the obama administration is when congress sues in th

fiona hill that he was in charge of ukraine and that he had been briefing senior white house officials, including mr. mulvaney, about his efforts to undertake, as dr. hill put it, a dou domestic political errand in ukraine. >> so i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all of the meetings that he was having. and he said to me but i'm briefing the president, i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney, i'm briefing secretary pompeo and i've talked to ambassador bolton. who else do i have to deal with? and the point is we have a robust interagency process that deals with ukraine that includes mr. holmes, that includes ambassador taylor. it includes a whole load of other people. but it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's e-mails and who was on these e-mails. and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in snanl secur d security foreign policy and those two things had just diverged. >> there's more, much more. a month lat

. >> fiona hill testified under oath that this was about a political errand, right? not about the other interesting corruption. >> lev parnas who admitted he had a shrine to the president in his house. so, michael, "the new york times" has an important nugget of reporting here. they're saying the president and rudy giuliani tried to conceal the ukraine efforts in a few ways. first that parnas smg esuggeste parnas designate he and his partner as special allies and mr. parnas said mr. giuliani walked away to call mr. trump, returned with a new plan. he would represent mr. parnas and mr. fruman as well as the president. why? a move that might afford their shared mission, the confidential of attorney/client privilege. mr. giuliani has denied that account. if that's true, is it legal? >> it's not legal at all. it's actually part of a conspiracy. a conspiracy essentially to obstruct, to obstruct any investigation, as well as to hide from congress and others the information about what giuliani and his associates are doing. keep in mind that giuliani also wrote a document sa

. >> why is it that colonel vindman who worked for fiona hill, who worked for john bolton and dr. cupperman -- why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? they risked everything, their careers. and yes, i know what you're asked to decide may risk yours, too. but if they could show the courage, so can we. >> reporter: of course it's still an open question if there'll be four republicans joining democrats to call for more witnesses and documents. now president trump's side begins making their arguments on saturday. so today a full discussion about the law and about the constitution. this trial could last at least one more week or longer if those witnesses come forward. christine and laura? >> all right, jeff zeleny, thanks for that, jeff. >> the city of wuhan in china now on lock down. the country struggling with the fear of a pandemic. more than 11 million people who live in that city now kept from leaving. authorities are trying to stop the spread of the deadly coronavirus. the death toll rising and officials say

. >> he called it a drug deal according to fiona hill. >> i think bolton is a very important witness because i think between me and bolton we could fit in all the dots. i think because i was on the ground there and he was over here -- >> you would be willing to testify? >> i would be very willing to testify. >> we have very significant breaking news just in. we just learned the government accountability office says that the trump administration broke the law by withholding that u.s. security aid to ukraine. >> i want to read from this finding. faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that congress has enacted into law. that's notable because republicans, the defense has been this was just a policy disagreement and that's in the president's purview. to manu raju on the hill here. gao says explicitly this was illegal. >> reporter: yeah, and this is the nonpartisan arm of congress. the investigative arm of congress. nonpartisan. both parties rely on the government accountability office to issue decisions like this, to

that's what fiona hill testified that john bolton testified the her. the former national security adviser said he's willing to testify himself if congress testifies him. westbroo witnesses said he was a witness. in a statement, the former security official wrote, quote, since my testimony is once again at issue, i hav

president's record with honesty and consider all the corroborating testimony from bill taylor, fiona hill, gordon sondland. this no doubt will hang over the president's lawyers as they present their case in the impeachment trial this morning. >> this morning we do begin with the tragic death of sports legend kobe bryant. this is the staples center. this is in los angeles where thousands of fans gathered through the night to pay their respects to the basketball giant. he was killed along with his 13-year-old daughter dgianna an seven others when their helicopter crashed outside of los angeles. the helicopter apparently went down in foggy weather on the way to a basketball game for his daughter. cnn's brook baldwin is live from the staples center with us in los angeles. brook, obviously just so devastating there and really around the world. >> it's a gut punch. it's a gut punch to first learn of one of the greatest and his 13-year-old daughter perished in this crash. but then as i'm about to report, every single person we've learned who was on that helicopter yesterday is a parent and a chi

fiona hill, sworn testimony, called this a political errand, bill taylor testified to it. you got the phone call, sondland, talking to the president as david holmes is listening here, plus other evidence, emails that have come to light in the last couple of weeks. you sat in congress, multiple terms as a republican. what is the danger to republicans here who vote no on witnesses, as more evidence comes out and have to have a fear that, hey, you know, maybe next week someone else comes out of the wood work and how does my vote look after the fact? is that a genuine concern for republicans, particularly ones facing difficult races? >> yeah, i mean, obviously i think people are going to -- this is going to be contentious. i don't care what the outcome is. and so i do think that's a calculation. but, you know, again, this is why i didn't agree with the defense, excuse me, coming out saying he did nothing wrong and we're going to show you he did nothing wrong. my argument is, hard to deny, the president didn't do something inappropriate, clearly. but does it -- remember, this i

fiona hill confirmed this review and testified on november 21, 2019. i'm going to again quote from page 75 of her testimony, that quote, there had been a directive for wholesale -- a whole scale review of our foreign policy, foreign policy assistance, and the ties between our foreign policy objectives and that assistance. this had been going on actually for many months. so, multiple witnesses testify that the president had long-standing concerns and specific concerns about ukraine. the house managers understandably ignore the testimony that took place before their own committees. in her testimony of october 14th, 2019, dr. hill testified at pages 118 and 119 of her transcript that she thinks the president has actually quite publicly said that he was very skeptical about corruption in ukraine. and then she said again in her testimony, and in fact, he's not alone because everyone -- because everyone -- has expressed great concerns about corruption in ukraine. similarly, ambassador yovanovitch testified that they all had concerns about corruption in ukrai

this is someone who's decided he will be i think fiona hill -- dr.ng statement and she discovered mr. giuliani and others in the administration were on a domestic political errand. it strikes me that mitch mcconnell has found himself on a domestic political errand for a president not worthy of that errand. >> just looking at the united states senate, what we've been following here are there any indications that republicans are breaking with mcconnell's posture? you've seen lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine say they're uncomfortable with the public posture he's taken, whether that translate into joining democrats and calling for the sort of witnesses you are, that remains to be seen. have you seen any other indications from republicans moving in your direction? >> no, and i wonder if you felt the same reaction i did? it was impressive certainly that senators murkowski and collins stepped forward to say in the one case they were dismayed by mitch mcconnell's statements he would not be impartial, he would work in full coordination. but wh

so that was fiona hill. there was also the evidence in the record from "politico" article in 2017 that listed a whole bunch of ukrainian officials who had done things to try to help the clinton campaign and the dnc and to harm the trump campaign. in addition, two news organization, both "politico" and the financial times did their own investigative reporting and the financial times concluded that the opposition to president trump led kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would have never attempted before, to intervene however indirectly in a u.s. election. that's the financial times. so the idea that there is no evidence whatsoever of ukraini n ukrainians doing anything to interfere in any way is just not true. they come up here and say it again and again. it's just not true. the other thing i'd like to point out, manager schiff keeps suggesting that somehow we're coming here and saying one thing and the department of justice is saying something else in court without litigation. that's also

they've said the same thing, i don't know how many times i've seen ambassador sondland and fiona hill say the exact same thing. i don't believe anything they've said so far is impeachable, and, but i do look forward to watching the white house present their case. >> this is the fourth day that we've heard the democrats make their arguments. final arguments are going to be tonight, but i will tell you they've run out of things to say about three days ago. that's because the case that they're presenting is weak and it's flimsy even though they on the floor have said that they have a rock solid case, that the evidence is overwhelming and that there's a mountain of evidence. well, if they've already presented an overwhelming amount of, a mountain of evidence, rock solid evidence, then there should be no need for additional witnesses because they have made their case. tomorrow the white house is going to be able to make its case x for the first time the defense of the president will be made for the public to see. >> main thing you need to pay attention to is now the fourth version of what

if we have witnesses, we have the opportunity to call her and cross-examine fiona hill. ukraine negotiations. they called him. we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine. if we are calling witnesses, these are witnesses you have heard from, we would have the right to call witnesses and cross-examine mr. kurt volker. george kent, the assistant deputy terry of state for european affairs. you saw his testimony. they called him, if we have witnesses, we have the right to call that witness and cross-examine deputy assistant. >> all right, everybody, i am neil cavuto, you are watching "your world," iowa caucus 48 hours from now, briefly interrupting the hearing to alert you to a major settlement, now better than 610 points getting worried right now that the coronavirus situation is going from bad to worse, the trump administration has just across the board of travel restrictions and mandatory core and teased over the corona virus outbreak. american denying delta, have held back flights to and from the region, concerns of the slow down ripping much of asia that has

i think we know certainly -- fiona hill is a good example. the boltons of the world and others in that arena, in that area of the national security council and the white house did not approve of how things were going with ukraine, that particular call and rudy giuliani's role. >> okay. jeff mason, we always approve of you. thank you. >>> bernie sanders calling elizabeth warren the candidate of the elite, the 2020 campaign grows more fierce three weeks before the first votes are cast. t for $14.99. choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today. i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ want to freshen your home ♪ without using heavy, overwhelming scents? try febreze one; it eliminates odors with no heavy perfumes, so

fiona hill is a bolton loyalist who worked for republican presidents. again are all republican witnesses calling out, flipping, turning, whatever the correct word is, a corrupt republican president. >> lev parnas dropped more than a few names last night in his interview. >> you say everyone knew, that means the sort of leadership circle. donald trump implicated barr. parnas is actually corroborating donald trump invoking william barr, and pompeo i think has also corroborated in documents released through foia requests that rudy giuliani was the person trump wanted all of the state department officials to work through. so they've all either confessed or implicated one another >> here's what he said about william barr, attorney general. >> do you know if mr. giuliani was in contact with with mr. barr specifically about the fact he was trying to get ukraine to announce the investigations into joe biden? >> oh, absolutely. >> mr. barr knew about that? >> i told him everything. it is impossible. >> did rudy giuliani tell you he had spoken to the attorney gen

the infamous meeting where bolton said to fiona hill, and the chief cook and bottle washer in this whole horrible scheme, this whole evil scheme, mick mullaney -- mulvaney. he said you and sondland are part of it, i'm not part of it. why can't we hear from mulvaney? he knew exactly what trump did, exactly what trump's motivations were, and who else was in on the deal. there seem to be many of them. it was incredible. one more thing stood out. the managers were anticipating the counterarguments from the president's council. they wanted to go forward. they did an excellent job showing how the president doesn't need to have committed a criminal offense to be impeached and removed from office reflecting on what impeachment meant to our founding fathers. representative garcia explained how the president's insinuations about the bidens are baseless, anticipating the president's lawyers will focus on the bidens. adam schiff had an absurd idea that donald trump terribly it is care deeply about corruption in foreign countries. it was a brilliant strategy. of the president's council gets up to mak

guardians of the trust here it's the taxpayers' money we're spending a lot testimony form from dr fiona hill john bolton's deputy here's what she said about aid is being held the morning there was a pre put freeze put on all kinds of aid and assistance because it was in the process at the time of the awful lot of reviews of foreign assistance oh you mean there was a policy within the administration to review foreign assistance and how we're doing it because we spent a lot of money and by the way i'm not complaining about the money i don't think anybody doesn't want to help but we do need to know what's going on and those are valid and important question manager crow told you that president the president's ukraine policy was not strong against russia but. ambassador you have on of it stated the exact opposite she said in her deposition that our country's ukraine policy under president trump actually her words got stronger than it was under president obama so again policy disagreements disagreements on approach have elections that's what we do in our republic for 3 long days house managers pre

fiona hill that bolton said huh-uh, i don't trust this. this is a drug deal and other things. thing is an enormously important development and one that's going to hopefully help us get at the truth. >> let me read you a little bit of the brief reporting we have. this was all happening late over a busy day in washington. but with regard to the republicans, there's not an indication publicly that bolton gave much of a heads-up to the white house. there is this reporting here bolton calling mcconnell today, informing him with a decision before the statement went public. that's according to a firsthand source. nbc reporting that, but they didn't ultimately connect. what if anything do you think can be gleaned from this among senate republicans who was as i was just discussing with one of their colleagues ultimately are going to have votes during the trial on who to hear from? >> yeah, i think it's inevitable that the senate is going to hear from bolton. there is no way to hide this key witness. bolton is like zoellick. he is everywhere. i understand that marco rubio just went on t

ukrainians to demonstrate the strength of their relationship with ukraine's strongest supporter dr fiona hill of the national security council explain a white house meeting would supply the new ukrainian government with quote the legitimacy it needed especially these of the the russians and that the ukrainians viewed a white house meeting as a recognition of their legitimacy as a sovereign state this white house meeting would also prove to be important for 3 handpicked agents who president trump placed in charge of u.s. ukraine issues ambassador sunland and master volcker and energy secretary rick perry the so-called 3 amigos they hope to convince president trump to hold an oval office meeting with selenski during a meeting of the 3 amigos on may 23rd president trump told them that ukraine and tried to take him down in 2016 he then directed them to rudy giuliani about ukraine it was immediately clear that giuliani who is pursuing the discredit investigations in ukraine on the president's behalf was the key to unlocking an oval office meeting for presidents alinsky giuliani by then had said pu

fiona hill also said that john bolton told her that giulianis a hand grenade who is going to blow everybodyiuliani.r more from mr. if you came up to me and said you are a grenade that would blow up in everybody's face, i would save we would never have an atomic bomb.e you are ros: we are not going short of big characters at this stagestn thy. how do you assess this standoff we have tween donald trump, rudy giuliani anjohn bolton? they are really going for it, aren't they? they are at one another's throats. thesere former colleagues meant to be pulling in the same direction, and now they are really rivals. and effectively what is happening here is i think a ilttle for john bolton's credy. want him to testify in this trial. bookly they think his contains stuff that should not be out there in t public domain. we don't en know if that relates to ukraine by the way. the bi of the book they object to. they are also trying to come from his point of view, he would say they are trying to trash his putation because the white house is quite nervous about the voted for in the senate trialg and him bein

fiona hill, john bolton's deputy. here is what she said about aid that was being held. this is her testimony. there was a freeze put on all kinds of aid and assistance because it was in the process at the time of an awful lot of reviews of foreign assistance. oh, you mean there was a policy within the administration to review for doing it becse we spend a lot of money. and, by the way, i'm not complaining about the money. i don't think anybody doesn't nd those are valid and important questions. manager crow told you that president's ukraine policy was not strong against russia. but ambassador yovanovitch stated the exact opposite. she said in her deposition that our country's ukraine policy under president trump actually per words, got stronger than it was under president obama. so, again, policy disagreements. disagreements on approach, have elections that's what we do in our republic. for three long days house managers presented their case by selectively showing parts of testimony. good lawyers show parts of testimony. you don't have to show the whole thing. but other

fiona hill and other aides what he was thinking about this process. now is continuous with what he said before his testimony appears to be completely internally consistent. that's going to have to bolster his credibility. >> if it is true he went to the attorney general to talk about it he told others that came to him and go seek counsel about it, those are also very material facts, professor feldman, thank you as always. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> i was going to say -- >> go ahead. >> i was just going to say as well, that bolton has long had a reputation as a very savvy and skillful bureaucratic actor behind the scenes. so if he says he had phone calls with other senior government officials, he had those phone calls and he'll have records of those calls. >> records. that will be the key. how could he demonstrate what he says. thank you for adding that, professor. helpful. >>> senators are making their way back to capitol hill right now. we're going to speak live with one next. of course, what do they think of bolton? woman: what gives me con

, i've just ordered my fiona hill t-shirt and there's not an action figure yet, but maybe soon. [laughter] >> and amazing friend, join me in thanking general lori robinson. >> thank you. [applause] >> i hope everybody has a wonderful holiday season and thanks for your thoughtfulness. i appreciate it a lot. [inaudible conversations] >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. government. >> in just a moment we expect oral argument to begin with a d.c. circuit court case whether former white house council don mcgahn must comply with a subpoena. about an hour and then another case regarding how lawmakers unseal documents in the mueller investigation. that's expected for about an hour, too. live coverage on c-span2. >> once again, waiting f

place someplace else like the united nations general assembly where in fact did take place now dr fiona hill was quite clear in saying that a white house meeting would supply the new ukrainian government with the quote legitimacy it needed especially these would be the russians and that ukraine's viewed the white house meaning as a recognition of their legitimacy legitimacy as a sovereign state but here's what they did not play here's what they did not tell you and i'm going to quote from dr hill's testimony on page $145.00 of her transcript these are her words this is what she said under oath it wasn't always a white house meeting per se but definitely a presidential league level meeting you know a meeting with the alinsky and the president i mean it could have taken place in poland in warsaw it could have been you know a proper bilateral in some other context but in other words a white house level presidential meeting that could be found on page $145.00. and contrary to what manager ship and some of the other managers told you was this meeting did did in fact incur it occurred at the un ge

fiona hill, characterized this whole scheme the rug deal and president's main operative, rudolph giuliani as a hand grenade. reporter: without getting out in front of yourself. can you talk about what the discussion is in the caucus around war powers? as part of that making sure whatever you guys aligns with senator -- mr. jeffries: let me yield to representative kim and crow talk about what some of the considerations should be for us to proceed. mr. kim: what we need to be thinking through is what's going to yield actual results here. what can try to move this forward in a way that shows that there is going to be a bipartisan approach as well to the best of our ability. look, i said this earlier today. this is certainly a big part of it, the war powers is important in temples understanding the contours of what the president is able to do. but what we also know is that there are lots of different avenues in which the president can proceed with different types of kinetic action. that there are no firm limits that are going to be able to completely restrain what he is willing to do. so that

and john bolton says to fiona hill, go talk to the lawyers.up. obviously we want to ask him what he knows about that drug deal. that was in july. purportedly in this book, john bolton confronts the president or has a conversation with the president the following month in august about the other quid pro quo involving the military aid. that is certainly the most serious allegation against the president, now proven by the house in its case. but this is further direct evidence in addition to the direct confession by mick mulvaney that he talked to the president, that the president told him that, yes, the investigations, or one of them were part of why he held up the money. sondland also, another firsthand witness, said that while the president said no quid pro quo, on the same call also said, but zelensky's got to go to the mic, and he's got to want to do it and announce these investigations, basically described a quid pro quo. so bolton is another confirming witness. there was also abundant circumstantial evidence during the trial, witnesses who

what we have seen is clear from the witnesses that testified, former ambassador, fiona hill and volker and all of them, it was clear the president was involved in this project, drug deal, as bolton called it, and he didn't want any information to come out. we are seeing some information redacted and damning the president knew what he was doing and more likely than not illegal, and he resisted the information, the advice of the secretary of state and secretary of defense and his own national security aide because he thought he could play his politics with rudy guilliani and get around the constitution and not be concerned about the national security and gate benefit for himself. that's why he's been impeached. >> would you support speaker pelosi if she decided to withhold the articles of impeachment indefinitely. yes. i think more information will come out and puts more pressure on mcconnell and makes the american public realize how serious a situation this is and how compelling the evidence is and will be if allowed to be seen by the american people and the senate. further, it's incumb