>> boy, i'm with jeffrey toobin on this. i've been watching this going on for a year-plus thinking there is going to be a sledgehammer come down. i mean i went to catholic school and grade school. catholic school, you can't do this anymore, but the nuns would slap you on the back of the head if you did something wrong. they're not going to bring a sledgehammer down unless it's a serious offense, although i never actually remember a sledgehammer in grade school. this is not a sledgehammer. this is not saying there is a da deep state, that the leadership of the fbi did something wrong. this is a slap on the back of the head saying you guys screwed this up. you mentioned the i.g., the inspector general. i never met an i.g. i like. the i.g. is known for saying, if you didn't shine your shoes right today, you're going to get whacked. among my colleagues, this report is really embarrassing, but it is not what many people would have expected, that is, at the leadership levels of the fbi, there is a deep state effort to take down th

i want to bring in jeffrey toobin. rmer cia counterterrorism official phil and our counter terrorism analyst. a lot of titles for you, phil. still you have to wait. jeffrey first. what do you make of this? i mean this, is one of the things the president and allies have talked about for some time. this campaign was launched on false premises, this report does not find that. >> including during the impeachment hearings. and the phrase that keeps -- that i think of when i read adam's brilliant reporting here is deep state. because the -- one of the main hypothesis of the entire trump presidency has been that the deep state, the fbi, the cia, the state department people who are apparently according to the president secret liberals have been out to get him from the beginning and using their powers to discredit the trump campaign and now discredit the trump presidency and what this report does, it seems based on adam's reporting in a conscientious way to say that's not true. that didn't happen. >> phil, you know, michael horo

jeffrey toobin. usa today column invite kirstin powers. former trump campaign strategist and cnn political commentator and a washington corporate lobbyist. jeff, the timing here has always seemed convenient. and there are always those noting the president released the aid after the white house knew of the whistle-blower report and same thing with the quid pro quo. but now you have a report that says he was specifically told. >> right. >> specifically told. >> why in matters -- why this matters is that one of the defenses has always been that was raised in the intelligence committee hearings is what's the big deal? they released the aid. and the president of ukraine never did the investigation. how could there be an exchange if the president of ukraine never came through? what this story establishes is the reason he released the aid is he got caught. he got caught in this illegal or improper or wildly inappropriate enterprise of trading taxpayer money for dirt on joe biden. he got caught. that's what the whistle-blower letter says. and that

cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jennifer rodgers, also a man who had don mcgahn's job in the mix nixon administration, john deans joins. joe jackson writes with respect to senior level congressional aides, absolute immunity from compel the congressional process simply does not exist. as the kids would say, absolute immunity is not a thing. how stark of a ruling is this? >> it's really -- it was such an extraordinary claim by the white house that not only doesn't don mcgahn or any white house official have to, you know, protect individual conversations with the president, the white house argued they don't even have to show up. they are absolutely immune from congressional oversight. judge jackson could not be more explicit as that passage illustrates. there is no such thing as absolute immunity. now, however, the complexity here is that what is covered by executive privilege remains somewhat ambiguous, but does don mcgahn, if this ruling is upheld, have to show up and answer at least some questions? absolutely. >> an

>> i hartly know the gentleman. >> back with us jeffrey toobin and maggie haberman.s so predictable that this would happen. we saw this before with person after person, barely know him. when does he start to do this and what does it sig nify? >> at minimum that he wants to suggest there was no proximity between the two where he would tell sondlond these things and he's trying to undermine his credibility which what we saw him do, manafort, it's never a good sign when that begins. usually when he says that he rarely uses the phrase i hardly new them. it's usually, i've met him once. i don't think that that bodes well. i don't know how significant it is in the grand scheme. what sondlond has done is amend his testimony. i think he's said what he was going to say. >> but it was after that president trump's used that phrase that only a bad screenwriter would use. >> he uses it again when he is trying to suggest that the person couldn't know what they are talking about because he looks at who knows him personally. >> one person he has not used this with yet is rudy giulia

back with me is jeffrey toobin. jeff, this is complicated. it's confusing a little bit.lain why would he have wanted to have joined this lawsuit? >> i have to say this is a baffling situation. just step back. the democrats have said they are not going to court to force anybody to testify. if you are not -- if you don't come in to testify in response it a subpoena, they're going to let you go. their view is, we have enough. we're not going to delay by going to the courts. bolton, and mulvaney are not being able to play. either way, is this the first for chief of staff? >> absolutely. it's the first. none of this makes sense. not much of what mick mulvaney does makes sense to me. he first made the result of ans treatment. he's got another problem which is he walked into the white house press briefing and blurted out the truth, which was that this was a mafia-style shakedown of a country in return for political dirt. i was reminded of michael kinsley, a gaffe. i can't make sense of this either. my best guest is at the end of the day i think he wants to avoid testifying. thi

. >> let's discuss with our analysts, jeffrey toobin, what do you think? a smile on your face. this is serious. let me tell you why. he potentially could be a critically important witness. >> you know what he has to do to be a critically important witness, show up. that's all he has to do. from the bottom of my heart i couldn't care less about his twitter account. what i could care about why he's running around the country giving speeches for money, why he has a $2 million book deal but not doing his patriotic duty, testifying before congress. that's an outrage. his twitter account is a complete irrelevancy. >> his explanation, software unattached? the white house is denying it blocked his twitter account and so forth. yes, he is a critical witness and for the democrats he could be the linchpin they're looking for in this case to tie directly back to the president in the ukraine investigation. his lawyer has all this information that hasn't been disclosed about ukraine. we have to see exactly what he tweets. >> as you know, he didn't just meet with the pre

jeffrey toobin, what's your reaction in this dramatic shift of mulvaney to avoid testifying? >> i will say the three words you're never allowed to say on cable news, this is so bizarre. keep in mind the democrats who run the intelligence committee already said they're not going to district court get anyone to testify. they're going with the people that they have. this whole court battle is a side show. bolton is not testifying, mulvaney is not testifying. they can fight themselves silly in the courts. the democrats are moving forward anyway. i don't understand why mulvaney feels obligated to go to court when he's not testifying anyway. >> the difference, kuperman and bolton, they're former officials and have private attorneys. mulvaney, instead of going through the white house counsel to testify is doing it through a private attorney. how can you explain that? >> i can't explain it. i find his behavior very bizarre. i don't understand why he's going to court at all. if he sits there in the white house he won't testify. the committee is not going to force him to testify. there

i want to bring in jeffrey toobin into this. you've gone through a lot of these transcripts.ut to you from these two officials? >> before we go into the details, the larger message from these transcripts is that they're consistent with the story that has been told by basically all the witnesses. which was the aid to ukraine was withheld at the highest levels of government. mulvaney acting presumably on the orders of president trump, because the, because the president wanted the president of eukraine to order an investigation of burisma and the biden family. that's, that's their, there are no surprises here because basically, every witness has told a story consistent with that fundamental set of facts. >> the acting assistant secretary says the u.s. ambassador to the eu, sondland, had what he calls a script for the ukrainian president zelensky to use in that phone conversation with the president on july 25th. so why is that revelation significant? >> because it shows that sondland what was part of the effort to get the investigation open of the bidens, he had to tell zelensky

. >> jeffrey toobin is going through this decision by this federal judge. what's jumping out at you? >> this is a tremendous victory for the house of representatives. the question is, is it a symbolic victory because of the element of time? the issue here is when any of these former or current white house aides will testify. this is a victory but it's just the beginning of the legal process. the white house has already indicated it will appeal this to the d.c. circuit. that is a process that will certainly take not weeks but months. the losing side may well take review in the united states supreme court. the impeachment process is going on now. nancy pelosi wants it over by the end of the year. there is no way the legal battle over don mcgahn's testimony will be resolved by the end of the year. the question is will any actual testimony come forward at a time useful to the democrats for the impeachment process. >> will don mcgahn, the former white house counsel need to await legal appeals by the white house or justice department or potentially could he make

joining us right now is our cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin and my other guests. thanks all for being here. the reporting about moving some impeachment witnesses potentially on loan to the white house back to their home departments ahead of schedule, is that okay? i mean obviously the president can have whoever he wants to have working around him. >> he can. and we can draw our own conclusions about why they're being moved back. i mean, you know, i'm reminded of a line from philip roth the smallness of people was simply crushing. the smallness of donald trump to punish these people for answering questions under oath when they've been subpoenaed. is just -- you know, par for the course. i don't think it counts as obstruction of justice. i don't think it's witness intimidation. i don't think it's a crime or impeachable offense but it is just really, really small. >> david? if some democrats considered the president tweeting about ambassador yovanovitch witness intimidation do you think there is anything, you know, not right about moving people out of their positions

>> rick santorum, thank you very, jen sake, jeffrey toobin, michael smerconish.t's good to have you all. this will be continued but we have to figure out what the consequences are going to be. by that i mean congress, not polls, not people, not the smartest people here sitting next to me, congress. what are they going to do now that there are cracks in the wall? will it last? a loyalist c isist congressman next. what's his case? ive it a practie run. kelsey. kelsey. marriage? oh. okay. look maybe you should just show her this beautiful helzberg diamond ring? that's a better idea. yeah, maybe not in the bathroom. oooh! oh my word! geico. it's easy to switch and save. a peaceful night sleep without only imagine... frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? [airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one fr

joining me now, back, jeffrey toobin, kirsten powers, rick santorum. santorum, doesn't this seem to undercut the president and certainly congressman jordan's argument that the ukrainians didn't feel pressure to conduct investigations into president trump's political opponents? >> well, i mean, i guess, you know, what is the definition of pressure? i mean, i say that in that i think what jordan is talking about primarily is pressure as a -- feeling that they were -- something was going to happen. they weren't going to get their money in order to, if they didn't do that. i think it's fairly clear that the president wanted the ukrainians to investigate the bide bidens. the president said so. i mean repeatedly throughout the course of the summer that certainly has been the case. so if pressure means that they were asked, i think what jordan is saying, pressure means that you actually have something that you're using to pressure them other than simply asking. all this says is the president asked and that the ukrainians felt like maybe they should do somethi

joining nous is jeffrey toobin.many things to talk to you about this morning, but let's start with this. how significant is it if the judge decides he can testify? >> you two, you're old enough to remember the mueller report. remember way, way back in march? >> i was in college, yeah. >> don mcgahn is the principal witness against donald trump in the mueller report. don mcgahn testifies and it's spelled out in great detail in the report that on at least two occasions, he went to the president and said fire robert mueller. make sure it happens. mcgahn saved the president from himself but it's one of the principle acts of obstruction of justice that comes from his testimony. if he were to give that in public, that could very well be part of an article of impeachment. >> but if the judge decides today that mcgahn does have to testify, it doesn't mean tomorrow that mcgahn shows up. it could be appealed. also if john bolton was looking for a reason to testify and the judge says mcgahn needs to, maybe bolton could take th

joining me now is cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin, jen psaki, and david axelrod.is latest round of transcripts, i mean they certainly seem to be very consistent going into this hearing. and i'm not even addressing the notion that they're doctored because it's just so absurd. >> it's ricdiculous. what's remarkable is now you've got more than a dozen people who have talked about the issue of the american relationship with ukraine, and they've all essentially said the same thing, that there was one policy on the books, one policy where the congress authorized and the president signed that said, you know, this $391 million goes in military aid. and rudy giuliani was conducting a separate foreign policy which said there would be no money and no meeting with the president and potentially no meeting with the vice president unless he started going after joe biden's son and the 2016 conspiracy theory. i mean every witness says the same thing. >> and, david, i mentioned this at the top of the broadcast, but i just want to put it back up on the screen. president trump tweete

>> let me just say i hardly know the gentleman. >> back with us, jeffrey toobin and maggie haberman.o predictable this would happen. we saw this before with paul manafort, person after person. >> michael cohen, on and on. >> barely know him, barely know him, barely know him. when does the president start to do with this people and what does it signify? >> look, at minimum it signifies he does not want to suggest there's any proximity between the two where he would be willing to tell sondland these things. he's trying to undermine sondland's credibility which we saw him do with manafort and cohen. it's never a good sign when that begins. usually when he says that about somebody, he rarely actually uses the phrase "i hardly know them." it's usually, i've met them once, i don't know them well. he actually said it. i don't think that bodes well. i don't know how significant it is in the grand scheme of thing because what sondland's done already is amend his testimony. i think he's said what he's going to say. >> but it was only after he amends his testimony that president trump used that

by the way, wither mike pomp i ask jeffrey toobin. >> i like to say wither. >> mckinley also testified he had three conversations with mike pompeo about trying to get some kind of statement of support for ambassador yovanovitch. pompeo didn't respond at all to that, but he did tell george stephanopoulos that he never had any conversations so listen to this. >> from the time that ambassador yovanovitch departed ukraine until the time that he came to tell me that he was departing, i never heard him say a single thing about his concerns with respect to the decision that was made. >> so you were never asked -- >> not once george did ambassador mckinley say something to me during that entire time period. >> you were never asked to put out a statement in support of ambassador yovanovitch. >> i'm not going to talk about private conversations i had with my most trusted advisers. >> even though he just did. >> that was an interesting shift in one answer, but look, the remarkable thing about this story, with the exception of ambassador sondland whose testimony may come out today, every single st

cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin, he's done a lot, too. >> not like that. >> gloria borger. cnn political analyst and "usa today" columnist kirsten powers. former republican presidential candidate and u.s. senator rick santorum. former obama administration communications director jen psaki. jeff, what was the standout to you? was it taylor's revelation about phone call that he was apparently informed of more recently? >> absolutely. because the one point that the republicans made over and over again, and i think an effective point, was that the two witnesses, as learned, as honorable, as honest, as they were, did not have direct contact with donald trump, and this is, after all, an impeachment of the president of the united states. if it is established that the president on the day after his notorious phone call with the president of ukraine, told ambassador sondland that investigations is what this were about and if sondland then repeated immediately thereafter that the president cares only about investigations and not about ukraine, that puts this story right on the presid

jeffrey toobin, preet bharara, thank you very much.dvice to the president and his allies about the looming impeachment fight. i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service, and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions. and i see it with zero commissions on online trades. i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪ they're america's bpursuing life-changing cures. in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells... because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people a

and cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, your thoughts at the end of these two weeks? we know more this morning than we did two weeks ago. >> we know a tremendous amount more. and what's remarkable is how the evidence is entirely consistent. for me the single most memorable piece of evidence was in kiev. right after the infamous phone call. on july 26 when sondland the ambassador to the european union is on the phone with the president at this restaurant in kiev and he hangs up the phone and he says to david holmes, the foreign service officer, like -- the president doesn't give a about ukraine things. he says what do you mean? this is a big deal. there's a war going on fighting against russia. sondland says no, no, no. a big thing to the president is something that affects his political future. a big thing to him is the biden investigation damaging his political enemies. that's the story. that's the story. and it plays out through all the witnesses. and, you know, we're now going to move into this mode of are the republicans going to move, what's the political future?

jeffrey toobin i wouldn't let the fear of censorship interfere with my work at home i was alone and icould write without any censorship of the censors would only come in after i'd submitted a manuscript so i tried not to waste any thoughts on what they would say about that and i'd say it worked out pretty well it's made up you know i must know in 1903 christoph hines work reached west germany and proved popular there too despite dealing primarily with life in the east 'd. he had a sure hand for selecting his manuscripts and had certain works published in west germany as well. christoph was among a group of east german writers and artists who success across the border of afforded them a certain degree of protection in november 987 he was invited to make a speech at the state sponsored writers congress there he saw a critical opportunity to publicly criticize state censorship. censoring publishing houses and books publishers and writers as antiquated useless paradoxical inhumane contrary to the people on lawful and criminal. and the name became a statement and unprecedented in east germ

. >> even if he is, the whole idea that my student jeffrey toobin and others get on television withoutg the statute books. these are guys who would flunk out of law school if they got into my class and they said "it's a crime to do x" and i say where in the statute does it say that and they say it sounds wrong so let's make it a crime. in 1815, the united states supreme court abolished common-law crimes and said as a matter of constitutional law, you have to have a statute pass in advance with full notice and full knowledge. you can't just make it up as you go along. if the aclu should be up in arms come every civil libertarian, every democrat should be up in arms. >> laura: this is scary, we can laugh at it but it's not funny. these are real people's lives, real statutes and real people who should know better. there's another issue tonight and that is the lawyer for the so-called whistle-blower just sent the white house a cease and desist letter writing "i'm writing out of deep concern that your client is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client and their family -- i wi

. >> i want to bring in our chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. looking for is not information about the russians or hacking or the chinese but about the united states. >> the remarkable -- >> the intelligence services of the united states. >> right. the barr has ordered an investigation of the origin of the mueller investigation and the whole russia investigation, russia's connection to the 2016 election. there have been many investigations of this and they have all pointed to the same set of origins, that alexander downer, an australian diplomat went to an american -- went to the u.s. intelligence services and said george had inside information this hacking was going on. that has been the origin from the very beginning there have been all these other conspiracy theories always refuted, even the republican house intelligence committees that there was some other origin, that the steele dossier had something to do with it. this appears to be this incredible investment of u.s. government resources in proving a conspiracy theory that's already been d

. >>> joining us now, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, political analyst david gregory and white house correspondent kaitlan collins. jeffrey, there are documents and e-mails which answer some of the questions clearly that are being asked or at least color in some of the edges here, and i just think it's amazing that congress doesn't get to see this. >> and people who know the answers to all these questions. mulvaney, bolton, pompeo, all of them know how these decisions were made about why the aid was withheld to ukraine, but the president has directed that they not disclose them and they're not being disclosed so far. there's no evidence that suggests anything other than the most incriminating view of what happened. >> is it fair for me to think that if these e-mails and if these witnesses could exonerate the president, they might be more willing to let us hear them and see them? >> that seems to be a reasonable assumption. you're a fair person, berman. i would say that is fair, that you can make that assumption. >> the fact that they're even doing this review shows you how scat

chief analyst jeffrey toobin, also, jennifer rodgers who had don mcgahn's job. i want to read a little bit of this ruling. put it on the screen. joe jackson writes, with respect to senior level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. as the kids would say, absolute immunity is not a thing. how stark of a ruling is this? >> it is really such an extraordinary claim by the white house. that not only doesn't don mcgahn or any white house official have to protect individual conversations with the president, the white house argued they don't even have to show up. they are absolutely immune from congressional oversight. judge jackson could not be more explicit as that passage illustrates. there is no such thing as absolute immunity. however, the come mexico at this here is that what is covered by executive privilege remains somewhat ambiguous. but does don mcgahn if this ruling is upheld, have to show up and answer at least some questions? absolutely. >> and the judge goes on to say it is not just a lawyer. not

joining us now is abby phillip, bianna golodryga, and jeffrey toobin. i think alisyn and i came in with a question about yovanovitch. what role does she play in this hearing given she was gone by the time they called president zelensky? i think we have the answer. it's been provided to us over the show. shaean patrick maloney said shes going to describe what she sees and what clearly the democrats see as the corruption that existed inside this rudy giuliani-led operation. why is painting that picture of corruption, jeffrey, important here? >> because there's two ways to view this scandal. one is that it's all about the phone call. it's all about the phone call between the president and president zelensky on july 25th. and if you believe that the phone call was ambiguous or proper, then trump is in the clear. that's one way of viewing this. the other way is that the phone call is a symptom of a larger corruption that donald trump set in motion. that he created this parallel foreign policy that was designed entirely to help him politically. and part of th

and jeffrey toobin, the hardest working man in law and politics. jeff, of all the unanswered questions what really do you think is the most pressing? >> i think it's by far what did the president know and when did he know it? it's very interesting to know about what rudy giuliani did, but, you know, whether the president himself pressured the president of ukraine to investigate his political opponents, that's the key issue. it's even more important than the quid quo pro issue. what was he trying to do? >> it's interesting when you look at the transcript. i mean, you know, there's a lot of republicans who claim they read the transcript and see no problem with it when it seems he asked for a favor and labels two things, the investigation of the server and the bidens. >> we live if had a highly partisan age. but i think reading the english language is still something we can all do and make our own judgments about. there is no doubt this is a deeply polarized situation. but, you know, it is not just the transcript. the transcript as far as i can tell i

." >> and joining us now, political correspondent abby phillips, jeffrey toobin and bianna golodryga. i want to put a point on alis alisyn's discussion with josh dawsy. there seems to be an effort to place distance between the justice department and the whole ukraine controversy here. not just this press conference that didn't happen but also, you know, we don't want to hear about rudy giuliani and anything he's doing. keep that away from us. >> and the contrast between barr's response to the mueller report is dramatic. barr, several times, publicly really not only said that the mueller report exonerated the president, but went beyond the mueller report, really put his own spin on it in a much more favorable way to the president than mueller himself did. here, the -- barr seems to be joining the witness protection program as far as the ukraine issue is involved. he does not want to be associated with the president's behavior in any way beyond what the official statements of the department have been. and it is true as the president said, that the justice department said there was no ba

garber teaching at tulane university and with us columnist kirsten powers and chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. so jeff, the president seemz to think the inspector general works for and should be loyal to him and not surprised he has that opinion given the past. >> absolutely. just remember jeff sessions who was the attorney general and did the right thing in recusing himself from the russia investigation and the president spent months fuming about that. and then ultimately humiliated sessions by firing him on the day of the midterm elections. it's always possible that one reason people come forward with stories like this is that they know it's so outrageous that once it sees the light of day in a story like maggie's that the story will be -- the idea will be killed. but still the principle remains as you pointed out, donald trump thinks everybody in the executive branch works for him not for the rule of law or the taxpayer. >> kirsten, just in terms of what you're expected tomorrow with the hearings and we've seen testimony given behind closed doors. we've seen transcripts of testimony that h

and cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. maggie, republicans have been calling on democrats to release the transcripts of the testimony of the impeachment inquiry. well, they got some now. and what story do these transcripts tell so far? >> i am having trouble finding information that bolsters republicans' cases that this is unfair, that information was being cherry picked, that there's a fuller picture. at least from these two. it's possible when the volker and sondland transcripts of released, and those are the ones i heard republicans talking about that they had concerns about information getting cherry picked and creating a certain narrative from. but so far the two we saw yesterday, to your point, they create a picture of an ambassador who was concerned about being threatened on some level by the president of the united states and they create a sense or a -- there were statements to the fact under oath that mike pompeo was not telling the truth when he was asked by an aide to give a statement supporting the ambassador.

joining us now is jeffrey toobin. sondland had testified before he didn't see a quid pro quo.e now says he did. let me read what he said here. he talks about a meeting where i said the resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement we had been discussing for many weeks. the investigation into the group connected to the bidens. >> what makes this so significant is that every witness except sondland had said i saw a quid pro quo. but sondland said i didn't really see that. but then he comes out with this supplemental statement, this sworn statement. he says now that you mention it, i did see it. >> not just saw it. he's the one actually proposing the deal. >> it is peculiar he didn't remember it. i don't think we should throw around terms like perjury. i've seen that in some of the news coverage. people change their minds about testimony. it's embarrassing but they are almost never prosecuted if they come forward on their own and say i now remember. one of the arguments the defenders have made is well, we may have thought

joining us now is cnn chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin and laura coates. at to have both of you. jeffrey, is unmasking the whistle-blower intentionally illegal? >> yes, it's illegal. i mean, there's a whistle-blower protection act. if this were a private company, the board would fire the ceo for behaving this way towards a whistle-blower. this is -- the whole whistle-blower idea is that they should have -- >> anonymity! >> protections, anonymity, much less be attacked by the president of the united states. and here, the whistle-blower is factually irrelevant. because the whistle-blower just said from the beginning, i have secondhand information. go talk to the people who have firsthand. that's what's been done. so, i mean, this is just pure harassment. >> and every substantiative element that the whistle-blower outlined has basically been confirmed and/or furthered by what we know from this testimony, laura. so you see this, and it's just a side show. it's just a distraction gig from the president. >> it is. it's essentially saying to yourself, let's shoot

director david chalian, rachael bade from "the washington post," and cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. let's talk about your reporting in "the washington post" about how president trump had wanted attorney general bill barr to go out and make a public statement basically exonerating president trump of any wrong doing or any illegality in that july 25th phone call. and we had seen in the past bill barr go out and make a misleading summar of the mueller report. so do we know why he refused to do it this time? >> yeah. quite a difference. i mean, back when the mueller report was released, barr went out there and braced trump's number one talking point which was no collusion. said that specifically to reporters. clearly when it came to ukraine from our understanding and my colleagues' reporting is that barr wanted nothing to do with the ukraine business. and wanted to distance himself from it from the moment this all hit the headlines. if you remember back in this transcript, the president told president se sen ski of ukraine, work with bill barr. he's going to want to help you with the i

joining us now to discuss, jeffrey toobin our chief legal analyst and preet bharara, our senior legal analyst. why is he chief? >> i'm tough but fair. that's my rule. >> let's talk a little bit about gordon sondland. he's already revised this testimony under oath once. what does he need to do today to come clean? >> probably needs to revise it again. probably what's been going on over the last couple of days is sondland has been sitting with his lawyer, trying to figure out whatever opening remarks he's going to make. maybe we'll get wind of that before he testifies at k a.m. to figure out how to thread the needle. there was this call you've been talking about that david holmes recalls on july 26th. oddly gordon sondland omitted that from his testimony. it's odd you don't remember that particular call with a sitting president of the united states from a restaurant, et cetera, et cetera. and so that he is out of the soup a little bit. my ges is he's going to say in recent events, there was this call and guchb what we know about him so far and he wants to straddle both sides of an issue

joined now but our legal and political folks, john dean, jeffrey toobin, david gergen, gloria borger, kirsten powers, scott jennings and jen psaki. >> i think they are getting away from quid pro quo because most americans, except david gergen speak english rather than latin. and bribery is also a -- it is clear what it is and there is evidence to support it. personally, i think extortion may be a more accurate description. >> but is it a little late for them to try to be rewriting, remarketing what this thing was? >> i don't think so. the facts are the facts. we are now moving into the impeachment process. and it happens to be true that the constitution speaks specifically of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. >> but gloria, what changed? why do you think they made this change? >> quid pro quo wasn't working. it was complicated, latin, as you point out. and the president -- you know, the supporters of the president kept saying well, you can't have a quid pro quo if there wasn't aid. the aid wasn't stopped. they got the aid. so where is the quo? would that be? >>

chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin now and joe lockhart and abby phillip. well, it had seemed obvious last week that president trump only released the money to ukraine after learning about the congressional investigation of the whistle-blower complaint. but now we have the evidence. here is what "the new york times" is reporting having spoken to people connected to it. president trump had already been briefed on a whistle-blower's complaint about his dealings with ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in september according to two people familiar with the matter. lawyers from the white house counsel's office told mr. trump in late august about the complaint explaining they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to congress, the people said. jeffrey? >> can i talk about why this matters in. >> yes. >> i think people view the facts as a jumble. why this matters is that one of the president's supporters' arguments has been there was no harm here. he gave the -- he released the aid and president zelensky of ukraine

. >> cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, political commentator joe lockhart, president clinton's press secretary, and cnn political analyst rachel bade, "the washington post" congressional reporter. great to have all of you. joe, yesterday it was historic. it's only the fourth time, obviously, in american history. nancy pelosi and others have said it's a somber day. nobody goes into congress to impeach a president. something has gone wrong if that's what's happening. that's one side. then we had matt schlapp on who said it was a good day for republicans because none broke on this vote. it was bipartisan. the polls show they are very good for the president. so was it a good day for democrats or republicans or neither? >> it's indicative of how perverse the political conversation goes that when a president is -- takes a step towards impeachment, his supporters say it's a good day. it was a procedural vote about the process. the republicans have a legitimate complaint that they're not even -- the power is not even in setting the rules. so in some sense, in one sense it was easy for

abby phillip and jeffrey toobin and neil catiall, our special guest, author of "impeach -- the case against donald trump." let me read what "the new york times" broke overnight. they wrote, president trump had already been briefed on the whistle-blower's complaint about his dealings with ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in september. that's according to two people familiar with the matter. lawyers from the white house counsel's office told mr. trump in late august about the complaint explaining they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to congress, the people said. so he knew before the aid was released. he knew, neil, before he got on the phone with gordon sondland and said there's no quid pro quo. he knew there were questions about whether there was a quid pro quo. what does this tell us? >> it tells us a lot. president trump's defenders have basically not been defending the president as much as attacking the impeachment process. they haven't really said oh, the president did things right. the one way they've made that claim is to say

jeffrey toobin pointed out it's no guarantee a stay is issued here.ay you need a reasonable likelihood the decision will be overturned. that may not exist here in regard to just showing up to testify. just showing up to testify is what the judge ruled. >> i like that. >> and i would say- >> i was going to give you the win, but go on. >> how can it be a win for the white house if a judge in a 120 page ruling outlines in meticulous detail how the legal reasoning you are using is wrong? >> because if don mcgahn never testifies, it's a win. >> don mcgahn wasn't testifying already. >> this might give impeachment investigators the chance to create a new article of impeachment on the idea of obstruction of congress. you did not come testify when a judge said you had to. so how likely is it they'll include those as articles of impeachment. >> obstruction of congress was already going to be something that democrats were looking at. they were looking at potentially witness intimidation, refusal to comply with subpoenas. yes, this is just going to add to that gr

our legal analyst jeffrey toobin is with us right now. let's talk a little bit about what we're going to be hearing this morning. dr. fiona hill was the top russia adviser on the national security council. she's got a strong statement prepared. >> she does. and the issue that she's going to focus on as i understand it is why was the president involved in all of this? why did the president have this obsession with ukraine? he thought ukraine was out to get him in the 2016 elections. so he had this bitterness against ukraine. what she will testify and what she has testified previously in closed session was that this was a fantasy. that ukraine did not try to help hillary clinton in the 2016 campaign. that it was always russia that was involved trying to help trump. you know, her narrative is very much like the narrative in the first part of the mueller report. the part about russia that said there was this concerted effort by russia to help donald trump get elected and not that ukraine had any particular role in the campaign. >> she's also

. >> joining us now dana bash, jeffrey toobin. william taylor will be the first witness to testify in the public televised impeachment hearings. this will be the third time this country has watched impeachment hearings play out on tv. you see this now. >> they can posture all they want ahead of time. it's not going to matter once we see the testimony, hear the witness. and the takes couldn't be higher. because the whole strategy leading up to this was to find the best witnesses based on what they said in their depositions. and bill taylor obviously fits that bill from their perspective because he is vp open about the fact that he was uncomfortable with what was happening. described a quid pro quo. and he is a credible witness. because he is a long-time foreign service officer. he is somebody who has the respect and the confidence of people in both parties, worked in administrations. >> republicans seem to be treating these different with any doubts they have. so they want to call all sorts of people they think may not have been up

political reporter nia-malika henderson, carl bernstein, plus chief cnn legal analyst and author jeffrey toobince again, jeff, rudy giuliani at the center of this, and in one tweet, essentially exposes his client. >> and the question has always been what was he doing and who was he doing it for? now his view is in the tweet that well, it was all just work as a defense attorney. so if that's the case, why is he making american foreign policy over there? why is he deciding whether, you know, this aid goes through or not, whether the president of the united states meets with the president of ukraine? every witness that has come forward so far has said that those were the real objectives of american foreign policy. >> and the president multiple times said oh, go talk to rudy for the details on this. he even said that to zelensky, talk to rudy. >> talk to rudy. and rudy, according to rudy, was just a defense lawyer, not an american government official. >> carl, the president, quote, wanted nothing less than zelensky to go to microphone and basically say investigations biden and clinton. that's what

>> yes. >> jeffrey toobin, your response? >> when you strip away everything, what we have learned over the past month is one thing, which is for the first time in american history, an american president has used taxpayer dollars to persuade, bribe, extort another president for information that will help him get reelected. that was the initial accusation and that's what's been proven over and over again with all these witnesses. >> dana bash? >> absolutely. and what you haven't heard is any republican on that day say anything other than that. no republican has tried, even attempted to poke a hole in that fundamental question, why we are all here, why these hearings are taking place. what republicans did instead was question the credibility of the witness, question the story, raise conspiracy theories that have been arisen from the community, the trump justice department which we'll get to in a second, but just keeping it broad, the fact that republicans didn't even try to go there on the substance of the allegation and what th

joining us now are john dean, david gergen, nia-malika henderson, jeffrey toobin, and scott jennings.f, there was clearly reason that the democrats saved fiona hill for the last witness. >> if you have a helen mirren bad ass, you put her at the end. it was -- and just an extraordinary performance. and also, just as a citizen, i think you had to feel good about the public servants who work for the united states in anonymity throughout this. the foreign service officers, the people who -- these were incredibly. >> an impressive bunch. by the way, that foreign service exam is hard. >> very hard. >> we don't want to talk about your cia history. ooh, sorry. >> the interns. >> i was a waiter too. no one talks about that. >> but, you know, the facts are not in dispute here. what the democrats did over these two weeks was to show overwhelmingly completely thoroughly that what happened here was the president of the united states said to his staff i have one priority with ukraine and it has nothing to do with the national interests of the united states. it is that i want information about this

we want to get some perspective from jeffrey toobin, former federal prosecutor, cnn's chief legal an and preet bharara, who served as u.s. district attorney for the new york southern district and senior cnn legal analyst and author of "doing justice: a prosecutor's thoughts on crime, punishment, and the rule of law." saying he didn't see any legal problem with the president's july 25th phone call. the white house obviously sees that as a win. >> right. and that is a good fact for them. remember, though, he's not there as a lawyer evaluating what's level, what's appropriate, what's a high crime and misdemeanor. he's there to talk about what happened. he is a fact witness. and as far as his facts went, as far as i can tell based on what's been disclosed, he has ratified, confirmed, what the other witnesses have said, that there was this quid pro quo engineered by rudy giuliani. >> that aid was being held up in order to effect an investigation into the bidens? >> which is in the view of many people, including republicans in the senate, wildly improper, if not impeachable. >> although ho