new reporting suggests that john eisenberg knew how damaging that phone call was to the president. this man, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman who served as national security council's director for ukraine told lawmakers that he went to john eisenberg to register his concerns about the call. according to a person in the room for vindman's deposition, john eisenberg recorded lieutenant colonel vindman's complaints and then conferred with his deputy about how to handle the conversation. politico reports, quote, the lawyers then decided to move the record of the call into the nsc's top secret code word system. vindman did not consider the move itself as evidence of a cover-up, according to person familiar with his testimony. but he said he became disturbed when a few days later eisenberg instructed him not to tell anybody about the call especially because it was vindman's job to coordinate the interagency process with regard to ukraine policy. nbc news and "the washington post" have since confirmed that reporting. also breaking tonight, house democrats have scheduled out going ener

can you think of any legal or national security reason that eisenberg would advise silence to vindman? >> well, john a simple word, it's called a cover-up. i mean why in the world is eisenberg, based on public reporting, telling vindman that he shouldn't be raising concerns about the president belaboring and pressuring zelensky? vindman is someone who was awarded the purple heart. he's concerned that a call is inappropriate, and you basically have a cover-up of him not being able to go complain about that. >> he also said -- the president has said it's a perfect phone call, so it does beg the question if the phone call is perfect, why would anyone need to be silent about it, correct? >> absolutely. i mean that's what's bewildering here. if the president really believes that he did nothing wrong, why does he need house members to be plotting a legal strategy? why is there a concern about people like vindman filing complaints? the reality here is this was an elaborate scheme to cover up something everyone knew was wrong. >> all right. lastly, "the washington post" is reporting tonight that a growing n

what has happened again and again as people go to john eisenberg and say they are concerned, john eisenberg has pre-judged these moments and said no criminal activity has taken place. he's been told to speak to the president directly about it, which he did not do. again and again we've seen him downplay what's happened and some have accused him of burying what's happened. as we see the testimony live next week, his name will come up. >> i appreciate getting a tour of his garage and the trunk of his car while you were talking. how much jeopardy is that guy in? >> if there's a body buried in the garage "-- >> we with have seen it. >> everybody says he's extremely cautious if nothing else. some people have even described him as paranoid. i think the problem for him is going to be whether or not the preponderance of testimony makes it looks like he has hidden something. that's a narrative that he's trying to push back on right now. >> john heilemann, sondland, rudy giuliani, mulvaney -- are they all three going to get nominated for the heisman anytime soon and decide to spend more time with the

we mentioned nsc lawyer john eisenberg, scheduled to appear next week. we mentioned rick perry, the energy department secretary, he's not showing up for a closed door hearing. democrats are hoping to hear from john bolton who won't come, apparently, voluntarily next week. what is your expectation on who will appear in the coming days? >> we've seen an incredible amount of defiance, remember that caustic letter the white house put out a couple of weeks ago saying there would be no cooperation from this administration. the top headline was it was widely ignored by officials from the state department and even the nsc officials. the nsc is part of the white house, steve. it's on the white house website, it's on the white house grounds. to have somebody in the nsc defy the white house counsel and go and testify on the hill is really an extraordinary event. that said, i think for folks like john eisenberg, who is an attorney in the white house and works pretty much directly for the white house counsel, i would be extraordinarily surprised if someone like that s

not to talk to anybody about the ukraine call after he reported that call to the nsc lawyer, john eisenberg. and it was eisenberg himself who told vindman to keep quiet about that call, to keep it all quiet. he may find himself in the hot seat soon. a source telling cnn the house intel committee has issued a subpoena to eisenberg, who is scheduled to appear on monday. scheduled, but it's an open question whether he'll actually attend. also subpoenaed and scheduled to appear monday, energy secretary rick perry, who tonight says he won't participate in a closed-door hearing, but he might consider testifying publicly. he may get a chance in a matter of weeks. and at the same time in iowa, the democrats vying to run against this president, 13 of them as a matter of fact, are rallying tonight. mayor pete buttigieg making a splash with this. >> i didn't just come here to end the era of donald trump. i'm here to launch the era that must come next. because in order to win and in order to lead, it's going to take a lot more than the political warfare we've come to accept from washington, d.c. >> wel

that said, i think for folks like john eisenberg, who is an attorney in the white house and works pretty much directly for the white house counsel, i would be extraordinarily surprised if someone like that showed up, you know, except in the circumstances where they had a direct court order to do so. so i think for him, possibly for john bolton, it would be quite surprisingt to see them. bolton's lawyer has already suggested he might join a pending lawsuit seeking to, you know, obtain some ruling from the courts about whether house subpoenas are valid in the face of this presidential direction not to appear. >> franco, josh mentions there is that pending litigation now as charles kupperman -- i believe his lawyer is also john bolton's lawyer, bolton's former deputy there. that is going to slow this process down obviously to some degree. democrats, nancy pelosi, the house speaker, talking about beginning hearings this month. youg know, what is the time li that's emerging here? is there one in terms of hearings, in terms of articles of impeachment being potentially introduced, and in terms

the two individuals that are most significant, of course, is john eisenberg, he is really the top lawyer at the national security council. his name comes up time and time again, with testimony from fiona hill, trump's top russia adviser and colonel vindman. they both approached him saying they were quite concerned about the president's phone call with the ukrainian president. he also comes in testimony as somebody who discouraged vindman from moving forward and discussing this call and also he comes up as somebody who potentially moved that transcript of the phone call to that classified server. what was behind that, what was he trying to hide. the second individual, robert blair, because of his very close connection, top adviser to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, also a former omb official, he was actually on the call between the president and the ukrainian president, and he also might have some details about how that money was held up or even transferred. jim, poppy? >> thanks very much. the attorney for the ukraine whistleblower says his client is willing to answer questions

you just heard our reporting, but apparently, we understand he testified that after he went to john eisenberg, right? the chief counsel of the nsc who said he had deep concerns about the president's behavior on the call with the ukrainian president eisenberg told him not to talk about the call with anyone. you were inside the room for vindman's testimony, and i know that you can't talk about what you heard. >> thank you. >> my question for you is, did you get the impression from what vindman said that eisenberg was just being cautious or was something more going on here with his instruction for silence? >> it's difficult to say, but what i can say is that given the history of president trump and his cronies and the administration, it is clear that they have repeatedly tried to silence detractors and silence those who were concerned about the preservation of the republic and so i think given the behavior, we can only determine their behavior based on their behavior, given their behavior they seem to be dedicated to protecting donald trump even though his violations are repeatedly plata repeate

john eisenberg and michael ellis will not testify. robert blare and brian mccormack have said they won't answer the committee's question. eisenberg is citing executive privilege. the rest are refusing to appear because they can't have a house lawyer present. several democrats telling cnn there's more than enough evidence to move on to the next step, which is public hearings. >>> the whistleblower who ignited the impeachment inquiry is willing to answer written questions if republicans want to commit them. but that offer is being rejected by president trump and his allies. >> the whistleblower should be revealed. the whistleblower gave a false story. some call it fraud. i won't go that far. but if i read it closely, i probably would. but the whistleblower should be revealed. >> the whistleblower should come forward in an open hearing. and the six people he talked about that talked about other issues, as well. he needs to answer the questions. we need an openness to understand that. >> mark zaid says the fixation on the whistleblower is

as we await that closed door testimony from key officials like john eisenberg and others who have beenmoned for closed door depositions, as of today we're officially gearing up for a whole new phase of impeachment proceeding, one that will play out before the public. today's vote to move forward the impeachment of president trump changes the whole framework of impeachment process going forward. joining me now is adam schiff. sir, thank you very much for your time. i know you have a lot of things to be working on right now. >> it's good to be with you. >> so the house has formally approved the process going forward. by our count we believe 13 or so witnesses have already testified. we know you have four more who you want to interview on monday and who you expect to interview on monday. do you feel at this point you personally in your committee have a good understanding of what transpired? are you in just the corroboration phase, you feel you have the facts or are there still fundamental parts of the story you ned to understand? >> we certainly learned an enormous amount and when you con

and what happened again and again is people go to john eisenberg and say they're concerned, and john eisenberg has prejudged these moments and says no criminal activity has taken place. he consulted with bob sicipollo, the president's white house counsel. some people have accused him of hiding what happened. his name will come up in the live testimony and the public will judge whether or not they think what happened is correct. >> i appreciated getting a tour of the trunk of his car in his garage. >> for john, he's a very careful lawyer, everybody says he's extremely cautious if nothing else, some would describe him as paranoid. the problem for him is going to be whether or not the preponderance of the testimony makes it look like he's hiding something. >> john heilemann, sondland, rudy giuliani, mulvaney. are they all three going to get nominated for the heisman anytime soon and decide to spend more time with their families? >> i've got to say, as this thing has evolved, brian, you've seen the extraordinary fact of these low level officials, but then we see in these headlines, there'

you heard colonel alexander vindman testified that the top lawyer john eisenberg directed him not to discuss what transpired on that controversial july phone call between the president and the president of ukraine with anyone. what does that tell you? >> that says to me that eisenberg was very concerned as to what this phone call would look like. so he didn't want vindman to talk about it. so this is why eisenberg needs to testify. >> he's supposed to testify as early as next week behind closed doors. do you anticipate he will or will he fight that? >> i don't know. so if he's like some of the other people who have already testified doing their jobs for our country, i hope that he will testify. but the way things go with this administration, they're just trying to block everything and stonewall everything so i don't know. however, the house's impeachment process will continue. >> as you know, the impeachment inquiry is now moving towards public hearings. >> yes. >> presumably later this month. lieutenant colonel vindman is willing to testify publicly so what questions do you hope he

immediately went to john eisenberg lead legal counsel so that doesn't seem like a change of command so it was not in the deposition with ms i'm sorry or said page 50 answer the 60 understand excuse me journeys allow colonel that meant answer so i reported to dr john eisenberg i attempted to report it to mr morse and i did ok thank you but he didn't develop self and at that point i was told not to say well he didn't say i just often i'll get into it and he has a lot of the witness to finish for or you finish with your answer yes thank you. ok in your in the morrison deposition on page 58 to 60 is the question was do you know if anyone else on the call went to eisenberg to express concerns in your answer and the answer was i learned based on today's proceedings based on open source reporting which i have no firsthand knowledge of other personnel did raise concerns question who based on open source without firsthand knowledge alex of inman on my on. my staff question then and he reports to you correct answer he does lieutenant colonel ramon's direct report was mr morse and it didn't happe

>> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you learn that the call record had been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> what reason did he give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system? >> it was a mistake. >> he said it was just a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> isn't it also true that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to? >> i believe i could have extracted the appropriate staff to do so, yes. >> why did you go to the legal advisor to recommend that? >> i was also concerned based on the participants and the listening room that day -- i did not then -- and i do not now recall any representatives from the legal advisor's office as they were often on head of state calls but not always. i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg, his legal advisor, and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> you wanted them to review it because you are concerned about the political -- potential political consequence, no

is a your understanding that john eisenberg move that transcript over to the intelligence server on his own? or did he do it in coronation with a john bolton? -- coordination with john bolton? chair schiff: i think you will see as we release more havecripts that there may been others involved in those discussions. one of the reasons we wanted mr. eisenberg to come in is to find out what his role was, what the role of others was, and why a transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system, that is meant for some of the most secret of intelligence is covert, that action activities, why would a call record that the president to have the country believe was perfect, why would it be hidden in this classified system? clearly, the white house does not want him to testify. they do not want the american people to know why mr. eisenberg and others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to cooperate allegations against the president. that is the reason we want to bring him in. and of course, w

restrict access before now did you speak to your supervisor dr cover men before you went to speak to john eisenbergno. did you subsequently learned that the call record had been put in a highly classified system i did and what reason did mr eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system it was a mistake he said it was just a mistake it was administrative error now isn't it also true though that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted so i do i believe i could have instructed the appropriate steps to do so yes so why did you go to the n.s.c. legal advisor to recommend that well i was also concerned. that based on the participants in the listening room that day i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the in a sequel visors office as they were often on head of state calls but not always and i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg as a legal advisor and his deputy watching i was there 2130 g.m.t. a day 3 of the public impeachment hearings on capitol hill and listened to 2 key witnesses in these hearings at ti

democrats have already subpoenaed two white house lawyers at the center of this ukraine matter, john eisenberg, for the national security counsel who ordered the transcript of the call moved to the highly classified server. he and his deputy, michael ellis, have already been subpoenaed. it is not clear whether they will or will not comply with that subpoena. additionally, the president is also facing the prospect of robert blair, assistant to the president, potentially testifying on monday as well. jeremy diamond, cnn, the white house. >>> as jeremy mentioned, president trump spent saturday night in new york at a mixed martial arts championship when he entered madison square garden, he was greeted with a loud chorus of boos and cheers. mr. trump is no stranger to this kind of entertainment. they said he likes a good fistfig fistfight. we're joined by professor of government at the university of essex. good morning to you, natasha. thanks for coming on. >> good morning. thanks for having me. >> let's begin with the president arriving to a i mix of boos and cheers which reflects the mix we're se

kupperman before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you subsequently learn the call record will been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> and what reason did mr. eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system? >> it was a mistake. >> he said it was just a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> now, isn't it also true, though, that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to? >> i believe i could have instructed the appropriate staff to do so, yes. >> so why did you go to the nsc legal adviser to recommend that? >> well i was also concerned that based on the participants in the listening room that day, i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the nsc legal advisers office as they were often on head of state calls but not always and i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg as the legal adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> and you wanted them to review it because he were concerne

make sure we protect them against the people that are killing them on a daily basis for that. >> john eisenbergow to be reviewed. he is a pop lawyer on the white house national security council. here is important about him just for our viewers. alexander vinman had said eisenberg told him not to say anything about the july 25th phone call when he brought up his own concerns and eisenberg moved the transcript of that call to a secret server. what do you want to hear from him tomorrow? >> we want to hear his side. we are trying to do from a deliberative manner is hear from all of the witnesses and we want to nope what he said, why he said it and why it was significant and important out of his mouth. and what we are doing is, you know, we are the ones that are trying to get witnesses, whether it's a diplomat from the state department or a person in the military or someone that is in the trump administration to hear their testimony so we can come up with what ultimately did take place. this is a fact finding and we are trying to find out what took place and what didn't take place so it's important

expressed his concerns about what he heard on that call to the top national security council lawyer, john eisenberg. a few days later eisenberg told him not to discuss it with anyone, and there's a few reasons why this is significant. it provides a fuller picture of that attempt to lock down the phone call. among the efforts to do that was placing it in a highly classified server. that also was eisenberg's decision. that's another reason why vindman's information is interesting. democrats really wanting to hear from eisenberg. that's one of the reasons they actually subpoenaed him to appear before their committee on monday. at this point it doesn't appear likely that he will comply. he is, after all, a member of the white house counsel's office. the white house counsel's office is the department that created this legal strategy of not cooperating with the impeachment inquiry. he's one of a long list of current and former white house and administration officials who democrats want to hear from next week. among them rick perry. as you mentioned, he has found himself in the center of this ukraine cont

next, john eisenberg, national security adviser warned by fiona hill and lieutenant cornlonel alexander vindman appropriate demands being made. remember, vindman testified eisenberg told him not to discuss the july 25th call between trump and zelensky and eisenberg and other nsc lawyers actually moved the transcript of that july 25th call to a secure server. something that isn't typically done for president's phone calls. now, nsc official tim morrison testified that the transcript was moved to the highly classified sevenor by mistake. in fact, eisenberg allegedly told tim morrison that his executive secretary mistakenly put it there. that bring us finally to rick perry. leaving his post as energy secretary very soon. he's been described by officials who have testified as one of those three amigos when it came to ukraine policy. that's along with gordon sondland and former special envoy to ukraine volker. perry attended that meeting with ukrainian officials but denied the bidens were ever mentioned. >> i probably have had as expandive a relationshipry ukraine as any in the administratio

-- john eisenberg is the top lawyer at the national security council -- approached him with concernsbout trump's political appointees pressuring ukraine. the white house counsel pat cipollone advised eisenberg to take those concerns directly to the. . he did not. here's someone who has briefed trump about russian efforts on his behalf in the 2016 elections. what's it like to present uncomfortable truths to this president? well, it's not comfortable. i will tell you that. i mean we weren't comfortable before the event. given the then-president-elect's tweets about it, i mean it turned out he was on his best behavior, was very solicitous, courteous, even complimentary. so the actual presentation was, you know, professional and relatively painless. but the buildup and the anticipation for it was actually worse than the event itself. you know, it strikes me, don, that having read a little bit of history of the attorney here, that he's a very meticulous lawyer and probably crosses every "i" -- dots every "i" and crosses every "t" legally, and i think perhaps he was focusing on the legal t

witnessed that they took those concerns straight to the national security council's top lawyer john eisenberg and at least search witnesses have described a shadow foreign policy by trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani. he is the one who helped pedal conspiracy theories linked to ukraine and pressured ukrainians to do donald trump's bidding. and national security adviser john bolton, hardly a deep state operative, called giuliani a hand grenade who is going to blow everybody up and added on the pressure campaign against ukraine, quote, i'm not part of whatever drug deal gordon sondland and mick mulvaney are cooking up. tim o'brien, it would seem that, as frank said, the process argument they were arguing before the process concerns were addressed by nancy pelosi, was the only hand they had to play. on substance, so far, not a scrap of evidence that turns this in any direction favorable to the president. >> that's true. and i think, you know, the president is in this place where he is denying the reality of what he is facing, which he has done historically any time he has faced adversity. i

national security lawyer john eisenberg and michael ellis, white house aide robert blair and brian mccormick from the office of management and budget. democrats were especially interested in questioning john eisenberg who took the step of moving the transcripts of the call with the president of ukraine into the white house is most classified computer system. several other depositions are set for this week, including the former nationall national securr john bolton. fox told it's possible but not probable he will show up. >> brit: the impeachment inquiry whistle-blower is offering to provide written answers to lawmakers questions. what do you know about that? >> it's coming from the whistle-blowers attorneys. they say they see it as a bit of a concession, wave answers and questions from lawmakers, republican lawmakers in particular without compromising or exposing the whistle-blowers identity. but president trump believes he deserves to meet his accuser face-to-face in person. he wants to make the whistle-blowers identity public and he tweeted today that written answers are not acceptable. ho

john eisenberg relayed that he did not ask for it to be put in there, but that the executive secretarystaff misunderstood his direction for how to restrict access. both of these individuals, tim morrison and gordon sondland will testify publicly in front of the investigators and the american public. lauren fox. >>> now to those democrats vying to face president trump next november. spending time, money and energy in iowa appears to be paying off for pete buttigieg. a new poll shows the 37-year-old is leading his rivals in iowa. his standing has soared by 16 points since september. >> that's extremely encouraging. you know, we have -- obviously, we have felt a lot of momentum on the ground especially with the work that we've been doing, not just in terms of my visits to the state but over 100 organizers there, building relationships, getting our message out. we know we're not as well-known as some of my competitors. it's very encouraging and at the same time, there's a long way to go. >> he's right. there is still a long way to go. the iowa caucus is the first real test for those 2020 d

and she said john bolton said i had to tell eisenberg, the white house lawyer, who had all the nsc and national security issues in his charge. and dan goldman said what did john bolton tellsa you to say? she said john bolton told me to say i'm not a part of the drug deal beingrt orchestrated by mi mulvaney and sondland, by what they're cooking up. the democrats quite skilled at bringing all the relevant witnesses, all the firsthand witnesses to the misconduct at the center of the impeachment scandal, which is donald trump's conditioning, military aid in a meeting with zelensky on investigations into biden in 2016. >> absolutely. you know, fiona hill is a lawyer's dream witness. not so not only is they sticking to facts, she's not allowing herself to be pulled in to anything edoutside of her specic knowledge but she is also importantly -- whenow she said won't answer that because of executive caprivilege, from a credibility standpoint what that communicated is whether or not it's a legitimate privilege, i won't take a side. i won't cross that line. when shes comes back to john bolton on

is it your understanding that john eisenberg moved that str t transcript over to the super secret intelligenceon his own or did he do it in coordination with john bot on the bolton? >> i think as we release more transcripts, there may have been others involved in those discussions. one of the reasons we wanted mr. eisenberg to come in is to find out what his role is, what the role of others was and why a transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system that is meant for some of the most secret of intelligence activities, that is covert action activities. why would a call record that the president would have the country believe is perfect, why would it be hidden in this classified system? clearly the white house does not want him to testify. they do not want the american people to know why mr. eisenberg or others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. that's the very reason we want to bring him in. and of course we are concerned that he as a top lawyer in the administration would engage in the

eisenberg. you believe he is john dean before john dean became the i don't know dean thjohn dean tha know. e you that eisenberg will cross over and say what is happening is wrong? will he break from the administration? >> that is so hard to predict. john dean was incredible in coming forward and also in his memory. he had the most phenomenal memory and had a detailed narrative before he knew there were tapes. and then he was corroborated by those tapes. so far in this administration, only the people who are career civil servants and career people what donald trump derides as the deep state are the people of moral courage, the people who are patriots coming forward and saying there is a threat to our national security and i'm afraid for this country. and that is what i hope gets communicated to all americans when they testify in public and hopefully they will listen. >> jill wine-banks, author of the new book the watergate girl, thank you very much for being here. >>> more a.m. joy oafter the break. y oafter the break. erty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you n

it's significant because this briefing by the white house counsel and john eisenberg who is the main lawyer for the national security council took place at the end of august roughly two weeks before the freeze on that aid was lifted. so we know that the president was aware that there had been this whistle-blower complaint filed against him in connection with his actions regarding ukraine both in terms of this phone call that he had with president zelensky of ukraine on july 25th and the fact that the aid was frozen and those are the key details in the whistle-blower complaint and he was aware of it at the time when he reversed himself. >> and he was -- aware of the whistle-blower complaint and aware that they were trying to avoid this ever ending up with congress which, of course, it did, and then -- maggie, we know the time line here is two days after congress, and the president's aware congress is opening an investigation into what happened. that's when he finally releases the aid. you also point out that this is very significant in terms of what the president was thinking at the t

. >> you knew john eisenberg. didn't you work together? >> john and i worked very closely together when he was in the office of legal council. >> are you surprised by our reporting that he would have told lieutenant colonel alex vindman not to talk to anybody inside or outside the white house about his serious concerns related to that phone call? >> what i can tell you about john eisenberg, this is a guy pla is it straight by the book. he's a very serious lawyer, and a very careful lawyer. and so it doesn't surprise me that he's giving advice to people about how they should behave. that's a normal job of a lawyer in the white house counsel's office. but what i can tell you is this is a man who has the highest character and the highest sort of moral ethics, so i'm not concerned about any misbehavior or inappropriate action. he's a straight-up kind of guy. >> seems like you're implying this is why he's not speaking today behind closed doors, because we don't know about a subpoena for him yet, is that fair? >> i think part of it is, as you kno

quote, john eisenberg related that he did not ask for it to be put in there.ive secretary of staff misunderstood his recommendation for how to restrict access. next week americans will have an opportunity to hear from tim morrison directly and from the eu ambassador gordon sondland. ana? >> all right. thank you for that. >>> breaking news. stunning new developments in the colin kaepernick saga the embattled quarterback out of the nfl more than three years attacked by president trump for his decision to kneel during the national anthem finally gets his chance to work out for nfl teams today. and then minutes before the most anticipated job interview in years, everything changed. a live report next in the cnn newsroom. at verizon, we're building the most powerful 5g experience for america. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl..

is it your contention that john eisenberg moved that transcript over to the secret server on his ownd it do it with the advice of john bolton and the security adviser? >> i think you'll see as we release more transcripts that there may have been others involved in those discussions. but one of the reasons we wanted mr. eisenberg to come in is to find out what his role was, what the role of others was, and why a transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system that is meant for some of the most secret of intelligence activities, that is, covert action activities, why would a call record that the president would have the country believe was perfect, why would it be hidden in this classified system? clearly the white house does not want him to testify. they do not want the american people to know why mr. eisenberg or others made that decision. i think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. but that's the very reason we want to bring him in, and, of course, we

i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg is the legal adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> you wanted them to review it because of the potential political consequences, not because anything was wrong? >> correct. political consequences was an umbrella term i used in my statement to describe a series of events. i feared about what would happen if and when the content of the transcript or the content of the mem-com leaked. >> just so i understand this correctly pt you heard the call. you recognized that president trump was not discussing the talking points that the nsc prepared and instead was talking about the investigation that's fee owna hill warned you about and then you reported it immediately to the nsc legal adviser. is that the correct chain of events here? >> that's correct. >> now ambassador volker, in the july 25th call, president zelenskyy volunteers to president trump that rudy giuliani had already spoken with one of his associates and that president zelenskyy hopes giuliani will come to ukraine. he proceeds to mention him on three separ

. >> cbs news learned the house intelligence committee subpoenaed john eisenberg, the national security council's top legal advisor, he will testify behind closed doors on monday. >>> coming up, santa clara county takes on homelessness. the new controversial plan to help the mentally ill. >>> a braysen smash and grab. how thieves broke into an atm in seconds. >>> cannot get any better than today? the answer is yes. the details of the forecast after this. >>> santa clara county leaders propose a new controversial plan to help the mentally ill living on the street and get them into treatment. here is devon feely. >> reporter: are sometimes referred to as the harbor homeless, many have spent years on the street, suffer with mental illness or substance abuse or sometimes both. they are paradoxically some of the hardest people to help while also being some of the people in greatest need of help. >> being bipolar, you don't want to listen to nobody. >> reporter: robert spent two years living he streets ering from bipolar disorder and methamphetamine addiction that chewed him up and spit him o

the official who told him to do so, john eisenberg, a senior white house lawyer, who is one of several administration officials being called to testify next week. this all comes as house democrats are gearing up for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. after hearing over 100 hours of testimony from 13 witnesses, congressional investigators say they are preparing to begin public hearings as soon as this month. >> i think a lot of the depositions eventually will be released. but not everyone is going to have to testify publicly. and they are going to have the opportunity first to make the case in private. instead of in the glare of the television. >> speaker nancy pelosi is saying there is no deadline to finish the investigation, telling bloomberg, any case made for impeaching the president quote has to be ironclad. meanwhile, president trump in mississippi last night slammed pelosi and her caucus, trying out a new message on impeachment. >> corrupt politicians, nancy pelosi, and shifty adam schiff, shifty, and the media, are continuing with the deranged impeachment witch hunt. thi

reported president trump's phone call with president zelensky of ukraine to white house lawyer john eisenbergwhat's strange about that is that tim morrison testified in his opening statement that he didn't think that the president did anything wrong in the phone call. but tim morrison also testified that he has never rushed to a white house lawyer's office after listening to any other presidential phone call. he said that his big worry after the phone call was that the memo of the phone call might leak. >> if it was a perfect call would you have had a concern of it leaking? >> well, no i would still have a concern about it leaking. >> would you have thought it was appropriate if president trump had asked zelensky to investigate john kasich or nancy pelosi or to investigate ambassador volker? would that be appropriate? >> in those hypothetical cases, no. not appropriate. >> but you're not sure about joe biden? >> sir, again, i can only speak to what i understood at the time and why i acted the way i did at the time. >> joining our discussion now tess bridgeman, former deputy legal advisor to t

depositions may be winding down with subpoenas issued to key white house attorneys, including john eisenberg, who was involved in moving the ukraine call summary to a special classified server. house democrats also want to hear next week from former national security adviser john bolton who indicated he would not testify without a subpoena. outgoing energy secretary rick perry was also asked to testify but declined last night pain spokeswoman sailed the secretary will not partake in a secret, star chamber inquisition. meanwhile, the president is expected to spend the night at trump tower in new york after taeppedding the yiewfn u.f.c. ft tonight. that's despite announcing this week he's changing his permanent residence to florida. reena. >> ninan: democratic presidential candidates are descending on iowa this weekend pain new poll finds massachusetts senator elizabeth warren in first place among democratic voters in the hawkeye state. former vice president joe biden, now a distant fourth. ed o'keefe is on the trail in cedar rapids tonight. >> reporter: well, reinwith with three months to go

what is most significant is john eisenberg. he is the one that fiona hill, trump's top russia adviser and colonel alexander vindman, the ukraine expert, approached over their concerns about trump's telephone call with the ukrainian leader. he is also the one who told vindman not to discuss this call. and he's mentioned in the testimony as someone responsible for taking that phone transcript and moving it into a classified server. what was he trying to hide? what was behind that potential move? now, democrats are trying to play this down, saying they don't need the testimony from these individuals. obviously, they're disappointed, but they say they're now ready to move forward in a new phase of the investigation, that would be the public testimony, alisyn. >> suzanne, thanks so much. please keep us posted. meanwhile, a really important development in the impeachment proceedings. republicans including the president seeming to retreat to what could be their final defensible position arguing against impeachment. what is that? we'll

. >> john eisenberg is the chief lawyer for the national security council, correct?> he is, yes. >> you went to see him. >> i did go to see him. >> what did you say to him that day. >> i basically gave him the same summary that i have given to you on the 10th of july. >> of what took place? >> of what took place, correct. including some of the details that i shared with you as well the sequencing and what transpired as i was walking in. >> now, did you have one or two meetings with him about that? >> did not have a great deal of time on the 10th. and i gave him the quick summary. and we agreed that we would meet again on the 11th, on july 11th, the next day. and i also wanted to bring in with me my colleague wells griffith. our senior director for energy who had been sitting with me on the sofa for the first portion of the meeting. and i also suggested that he speak to colonel vindman separately as well because colonel vindman was in the war room when i arrived and had been engaged in some discussion before i got there as i got into the room, they were clearly in the

first from fiona hill who testifies that i told john eisenberg that ambassador sondland had basicallyndicated that there was agreement with the chief of staff that they would have a white house meeting or, you know, a presidential meeting if the ukrainians started up these investigations again. and the main thing that i was personally concerned about as i said to john, was that he did this in front of the ukrainians as we have noted. and from colonel vindman who also reported his concerns to eisenberg. take a listen to this, which is particularly damning i think. he was asked did mr. eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around your direct report and go straight to him? vindman says actually he did at a later point say that i should not talk to any other people. frank, this picture of a cover-up that's being painted by these two critical witnesses. >> well, we all know it's the cover-up that's worse than the crime. that certainly was the factor in watergate. and essentially it's related also to sticking the summary of this call in what is the equivalent of a high-tech black hole. th

>> congressman, please allow colonel vindman to answer. >> i reported to john eisenberg.i attempted to report it to mr. morrison. >> thank you. >> he didn't avail himself. at that point i was told not to -- >> he did avail himself. >> please allow the witness to finish. colonel, are you finished with your answer? >> yes. >> thank you. >> okay. in the morrison deposition, on page 58 to 60, it question was do you know if anyone else on the call went to eisenberg to express concerns and your answer was, i learned based on open source reporting which i have no firsthand knowledge that other personnel did raise concerns. question: who? based on open source, without firsthand knowledge, alex vindman on my staff. the question then, and he reports to you, correct? answer: he does. lieutenant colonel vicinindman' direct report was mr. morrison and it didn't happen. lieutenant colonel, the question was, okay, after the call on 7/25, do you have any discussions with mr. morrison about your concerns? answer: after the call, i -- well per the exercise in the chain of command and expre

kupperman, before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you subsequently learn the call record had been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> and what reason did mr. eisenberg give you for why the call record was put in the highly classified system? >> it was a mistake. >> he said it was just a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> now, isn't it also true, though, that you had authority to restrict access on the regular system if you wanted to? >> i believe i could have instructed the appropriate staff to do so, yes. >> so why did you go to the nsc legal adviser to recommend that? >> well, i was also concerned that based on the participants in the listening room that day, i did not then and i do not now recall any representatives from the nsc legal adviser's office as they were often on head of state calls but not always and i wanted to make sure that john eisenberg as the legal adviser and his deputy were aware to review this particular transcript. >> and you wanted them to review it because you were concer

no shows at the house's impeachment inquiry today, national security council michael john eisenberg and l s assistant to the president robert flair and brian mccormi with officer of management and budget will not testify. now according to executive privilege is ial preventing eisenberg fm showing up. others are skipping the inquiryecause they c't have a white house lawyer there comes as house investigators get ready to start the next phase of impeachment inquiry against president trump. all 6 week road trip the raiders were finally back at home at the coliseum for their home game against the detroit lions now in the 1st quarter raers running back josh cobs he rushes for a touchdown to score the first points. >>oh yeah, hs proud. it's downto tie the game. raiders quarterback derek carr, he also gotto work to get it touchdown passes in the 2nd the lead. to get them back in you got to play in front of our fans. it was loud. especially tards the end zones as always which i miss i love i laugh about l the time. if i think i'm out of them all the time and just trying to hear coach great call