did michael duffey get a order from the president? or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president that was passed on to mr. duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay? questions that can only be answered by examination evidence andntary testimony of key administration oath, in aunder senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we requested. revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new emails. we are getting portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. much of the evidence obtained by the recent request has been heavily redacted. here is an email chain between officials of the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted. out. word crossed not available. can't be seen. here is another email with

certainly democrats would like to hear from that guy, michael duffey. house speaker pelosi also weigh in tweeting late today, quote, trump engaged in unprecedented total obstruction of congress, hiding these emails, all other documents, and his top aides from the american people. why won't trump and mcconnell allow a fair trial? joining us now is kate brannon, editorial director at just security. kate, thanks for joining us. it's so fascinating, your reporting, and what you found behind these redactions. it's quite clear at least in the opinion of the people writing was it was the president himself who personally directed the aid to be held. >> and every step of the way when there is sort of a moment where they think the hold could be lifted, it all comes down to what the president wants. there has been this pretext sort of this pretextual story of why the hold was there in the first place is they wanted to do a policy review, see that the money was being well spent. but it's clear from these emails that that's not taking place. there is no reference to

he knows exactly -- he had michael duffey's job.e could very easily tell if this email is legal or illegal. it's binary. what does he say? >> i don't know what to tell you. i just feel like, politically speaking, so many of these republican senators have gone so far down this road. if they wanted to turn around now, there are no bread crumbs to lead them back. you have made your bed at this point, and i think just politically speaking taking the moral calculation out of it, and i know that's like not what anyone wants to do. but if you're just looking at this in a lizard-brain political way, you're in it now, and there is just not the value back out. [ laughter ] >> and the vulnerable members and so as fast as you can dismiss this and move on from this, the easier it may be for cory gardner. >> move on to what? we don't think he's going to be impeached for doing the same thing to another country? i guess my point is why do they think moving on from this makes it better? >> i don't know. i think just because, look, the facts of this

michael duffey defied the house of subpoena at the president's direction he refused to appear. now, the house of the not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffey to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear and added no reason why. if mr. duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i bet he wouldn't have been walked from testifying. the fact that he was blocked by his lead you to enter that his testimony would be damaging to the president and would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses that the hold was solely used to ratchet up pressure on ukraine. but the warning from dod were not just about how the hold was illegal. there were also practical consequences. by august 12, the department of defense id could no longer guarantee it would be able to spend all $250 million congress had directed before the end of the fiscal year. not long after this august 12 e-mail, dod determined that time had run out. ms. cooper testified dod estimate as much as $400 million of aid might go

, and rob blair from the chief of staff's office and michael duffey from the office and managementdom of information request, and then there was litigation to try to force the white house to release these emails. there was a deadline set for 5:00 p.m. this evening for them to release the materials. >> so a judge has said that they should release them. the white house, what is their argument? is this the argument essentially saying these are internal communications and those should remain private in order to, in the future, allow people to have a free exchange of ideas? >> well, the judge ordered the white house to conduct an expeditious search to review the materials and gave them a deadline of 5:00 p.m. then when we were anticipating some form of documents, we thought -- we knew they would be heavily redacted, but we anticipated getting at least some emails. instead we got a one-page letter that said there are 20 emails that have been identified that represent approximately 40 pajz of documents, and we are withholding all of them because we consider them to be privileged, a, becau

e-mails from michael duffey revealed he had quote clear direction from the president to continue to hold on military assistance. and yesterday the "new york times" reported on several stunning chapters from ambassador bolton's book, including the admission by mr. bolton that he was ordered by the president to continue freezing military assistance to ukraine until it was announced -- until it announced the political investigations it was seeking. the detail from ambassador bolton gets at the very heart of the first article of impeachment. the same "new york times" story places mick mulvaney at the stint of this clock. he's a more important witness probably than bolton, , and e-mails from duffey and valero, and two of the witnesses we seek are even more relevant as this information comes out. so i understand why leader mcconnell and president trump wanted a very short, incredibly rushed trial. because the longer, longer it goes on, the more likely that new evidence and more new evidence will come out that further implicates the president. just look at the other "new york times" report last

blair, mick mulvaney, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t bott, michael duffey, brian mccormick, and t ulrich brengle. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine the united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of the impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. this abuse of office to cover up the president own misconduct and seize and control the power of impeachment and thus nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. in all of this, presid

mick mulvaney, robert blair, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston griffith, russell locke, michael duffey, ryan mccormick, nt orrick reptile, these actions were consistent with president trump previous efforts to undermine the united states governmentfe investigations into foreign interference in the united states elections. through these p actions presidet trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine scope and nature of the impeachment inquiry into his own conduct. as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. in the history of the republic, no president have ever reported the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede, sohe comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. this abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct. and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify the vital constitutionat safeguard invested solely in the hou

michael duffey defied the house's subpoena. at the president's direction, he refused to appear. now, the house did not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffey to defy congress' subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear, and they had no reason why. if there duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i'll bet he would not have been blocked from testifying. the fact that he was blocked might lead you to infer that his testimony would be damaging to the president and would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses that the hold was solely used to rachet up pressure on ukraine. but the warnings from dod weren't just about how the hold was illegal. there were also practical consequences. by august 12th, the department of defense told omb it could no longer guarantee it would be able to spend all $250 million that congress had directed before the end of the fiscal year. not long after this august 12th email, dod determined that time had run out. ms. cooper testified that dod estimated that as much

one of those emails released yesterday was from michael duffey, one of the witnesses we've requested to the pentagon controller. and it read, quote, clear direction from potus, the president, to continue the hold. clear direction from the president to continue the hold is what duffey wrote. what constituted clear direction? did he get an order from the president, or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president passed on to mr. duffey? was there discussion among officials about covering up for the president in delay of military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a did he ever stati-- devastating blow t leader mcconnell's push without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth. with these new emails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the ev

the same day, blair told him to pull of the eight and michael duffey, a political and omb reports.-mailed and told her that the president had questions about the aide. duffy copied mark sandy, a career official and omb told us about the e-mail and his testimony before the house. like all others, that e-mail was not produced by the trump administration and the house impeachment investigation. we know this e-mail exists however. because in response to a freedom of information act, the trump administration was forced to release the redacted e-mail. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has opportunity to obtain and review the full record to further demonstrate how and why the president was holding made. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3rd, the state department told various officials that i would be blocked it from dispensing $141,000,000.8. omb had directed the state department not to send the notification to congress about spending the money. and without the notific

michael duffey defied the house of subpoena at the president's direction he refused to appear. now, the house of the not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffey to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear and added no reason why. if mr. duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i bet he wouldn't have been walked from testifying. the fact that he was blocked by his lead you to enter that his testimony would be damaging to the president and would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses that the hold was solely used to ratchet up pressure on ukraine. but the warning from dod were not just about how the hold was illegal. there were also practical consequences. by august 12, the department of defense id could no longer guarantee it would be able to spend all $250 million congress had directed before the end of the fiscal year. not long after this august 12 e-mail, dod determined that time had run out. ms. cooper testified dod estimate as much as $400 million of aid might go

we need robert blair and michael duffey, the president's hinch men in executing the corrupt abuse of power, demanding an investigation of a united states citizen, a political rival in return for release of this money. so far as the rush is concerned, well, the house moved expeditiously. they're complaining about a rush. but now they're trying to rush this trial. they're saying we can't have witnesses, documents because they would take too long. >> right. >> that kind of argument falls on its own weight. the bottom line here, chris, is as i would tell my colleagues, you can't put blinders on and complain you can't see. >> mm-hm. i get the analogy. i have a question about strategy from the democrats. why didn't any of the house managers introduce this tape of the president asking lev parnas about what was going on in ukraine and saying got to get rid of that ambassador and the documents that parnas has put out. he's a huge credibility issue. his story doesn't make sense. he's indicted for good reason when you read through the indictment itself. his lawyer was just on with anderson. the

house is refusing to comply with these foia requests, refusing to turn over 20 emails between michael duffey party to one of the emails you got, and an aide to acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. so, essentially emails between duffey and the president's office. the fact that they having in the past turned over but heavily redacted other emails that the white house, is now, according to "the times," is not willing to turn those over at all. what does it indicate to you? >> i would love to see them. i think it's an interesting question why not release them at all, why not release them heavily redacted? either the contents of the emails themselves are so incriminating, or maybe perhaps someone has raised the point to me now that i've been able to report on the emails, even though they were redacted, there might be concerns that sort of the redactions have some kind of vulnerability or something like that or they're concerned about leaking, you know, somebody giving a reporter the emails. so, yeah. i think when your question about what should americans kind of take away from this, i

buff it fell to michael duffey to carry out the program. utes of president trump's controversial call with the ukrainian president on july 25th, duffey told officials at omb and the pentagon to withhold security aid for ukraine. he seemed to know it could cause concerns given the sensitive nature of the request, duffey wrote i appreciate you keeping that information closely held. as the hold dragged on and pentagon officials sounded the alarm that the freeze could run afoul of the law, duffey told a top pentagon official on july 30th that the demand was coming from the top. clear direction from potus to continue to hold. sara murray, cnn, washington. >> back now with our political legal team. david gergen, how do you think this is going to play out? as you heard from senator hirono, chuck schumer tomorrow is saying he is going to offer a whole series of amendments dealing with witnesses and documents, but not sure that's going to amount to really anything. they might just delay that all until afterward. >> i think that mitch mcconnell plays

because that day begins with michael duffey not knowing it would be lifted.n you see this email scramble that shows this disorganized nature of going back and forth between the omb and people not knowing is it going to be lifted, why is it lifted, why is this happening. and it turns out that's after the controversy broke and they had to do it. >> after the whistle-blower complaint is out. to be continued. >> okay. thank you. >> great to have you here. >>> all right. with just a week and a half to go before the first votes of the 2020 race, we have a new national poll that shows one candidate making big moves. plus what hillary clinton is saying now about bernie sanders. go where the new year takes you with t-mobile. get free smartphones when you add new lines. so you can stream like this... ...because we give you that and we also give you that.so you can stargaze like this... game like this adjust this. re-adjust this. and you can do all this, because of that. so do this, on that, with us. hurry in to get free smartphones now. little things can be a big deal.

john bolton, nick mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey. all people have significant information about but donald trump is been charged with. we don't have any single documents. would i have a single of testimony on oath. and why, because the president directed them not to cooperate. the house. enough to testify. not to say anything. if these witnesses performed, their legal duty and having been and they are cooperated with the house. we would it be in this position. and there's no question that all senators republicans and democrats alike will benefit. premiering with this witnesses have to say. all of them have direct relevant information about president trump news with respect to retain. there's no good reason tooo postpone the testimony. take just months. the national advisory travel in. son. my question of all of the center is this. they already know that according to mr. bolton news lawyer, he was personally involved in many of the events. makes and conversations that are not yet been discussed the testimonies thus far. where any know

mark sandy received an email from his boss michael duffey that for the first time gave a reason for the hold. sandy testified that in early september he received an email from duffey, quote, that attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing more to ukraine. again, after months of scrambling this was the first time any reason had been provided for the hold and according to sandy it was also only in early september, again after the white house led the whistle-blower complaint and the hold became public that the white house requested data from omb on other countries' assistance to ukraine. so let's recap why we know the concern about burden sharing was bogus. first, for months no reason was given to the very people executing the military aid. who had been actively searching for answers about why the aid was being held. second, remember the supposed interagency process performed by omb. well, it was fake. and third, after the hold went public and the white house became aware of the whistle-blower they started scrambling to develop another excuse. pub

so-called drug deal direct contact with the president of the united states, robert blair, and michael duffey not just the president's men, they were the president henchmen. they executed, the drug deal. each of these witnesses had eyes and ears on the president of the united states. they have firsthand knowledge and they are the witnesses who must appear and maybe they will have, events to show the president's innocence. maybe they will help to exonerate him. but the president has refused all of those witnesses. he has skated them, and he has locked all of the documents. let me say about the documents, as we argued to the jury, documents don't lie. it is like my. . . . not a cover-up which is what the president has sought to do and so i hope my republican colleagues will in fact put country above party and decide that the american equal want a full, fair and open proceeding so that they will no all the truth and all of these corroborating witnesses, the cases are the overwhelmed but i'm going to be listening. i will be listening closely to every word, watching every video and documents that

the latest include emails from budget officials michael duffey that were reviewed by the national security blog, just security. the emails appear to link president trump to the order to hold military aid to ukraine. >> these people are crazy. there is no crime, there is no nothing. i said read the transcript. >> reporter: house speaker nancy pelosi has repeatedly warned she will not hand over articles of impeachment to the senate until there are assurances of a fair trial. >> this is fantasy, the speaker of the house will get to hand design the trials in the senate, that is obviously a nonstarter. >> reporter: senate majority leader mcconnell says that the senate will move on to other business while the standoff continues. natalie brand, cbs news, capitol hill. still ahead, three military families lost everything when the moving truck was stolen in northern california. what police are calling an inside job. >>> how the quarterback is helping build chemistry off the field. >>> coming up all new at 6, fears of a brewing world war iii after u.s. airstrikes held a top iranian general. today, w

in a two mulvaney named robert blair who is basically a deputy and staff of mick mulvaney and michael duffey was a budget official at the office of management and budget who was involved in actually halting the distribution of a to ukraine. and they want those witnesses, not clear to me whether blair and duffey would really qualify as close presidential advisers or not. obviously mulvaney and bolton did and another reason for this playing out the weight might is the question of whether john bolton might be more entitled to or the the president more entid to executive produce because of bolton's role as a national security adviser as opposed to just a general white house lawyer or routine policy official. there are some previous rulings from the court suggesting those kinds of visuals that work on foreign policy and national security matters might be entitled to some more deference. but exactly how that would play out is curious and there's also this question of whether john roberts as i said earlier the chief justice would rule immediately on a motion like that or whether he would wait for t

one comes from a budget official, michael duffey. he tells the acting pentagon control "clear direction from potus to continue to hold." earlier emails, control raise concerns about the legality of the hold. >>> campaign 2020 news, william castro has dropped out of the democratic presidential race. the former housing secretary was the only latino candidate. his announcement today shrinks the number of democratic candidates to 14. a little more than a month before the iowa caucuses. skyler henry on what drove castro to drop out. >> i've determined it is simply not our time. >> reporter: william castro is suspending his presidential campaign. the former housing secretary made the announcement in a video thursday morning. nearly a year after launching his bid to become the nation's first latina president. latino president. >> i'm very sorry that he has dropped out of the race, because i thought that he was an important voice in the conversation. he castro received an outpouring of support from other 2020 democrats for his bold vision of

the same day blair told vought to hold up the aid, michael duffey a political appointee at omb reports to vought e-mailed deputy undersecretary defense elaine mccusker and told her the president had questions about the aid. duffey copied a career official at ombol who told us about the e-mail in his testimony before the house. like all others that email was not produced by the trump administration in thehe house impeachment investigation. we know this email exist, however, because in response to a freedom of information act lawsuit trump administration was forced to release a redacted in a consistent with the description. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment dissent has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how andur why the president was holding the aid. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3 the state department told various officialsde that ob blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. omb had directed the state department not to s

acting director russell vought, michael duffey and michael mccormick. according to to testify in the house that was reinforced by e-mails recently revealed, omb was central to the president's hold on security assistance to ukraine. its officials served as conduits to the white house to implement the hold without directly engaging the agencies that supported release of the aid. president trump directed these three omb officials to violate their subpoenas and they followed his orders. this isn't just an argument. it's a fact. in response to house subpoenas, the omb sent a letter to chairman schiff refusing to comply. this is what the letter said. "as directed by the white house counsel october 8, 2019 letter, omb will not participate in this partisan and unfair impeachment inquiry." in that simple statement, omb admitted several key points. first, mr. cipollone's letter was an official directive from the white house. second, president trump's blanket order applied to omb and the three officials subpoenaed by the house. third, president trump's blanket ord

and michael duffey and michael -- robert blair, the other witnesses we would like to talk to have firsthand information. some of them had firsthand conversations with the president. so why is it that the administration doesn't want them outed? why doesn't the administration want them to talk to the american people? it is because they know it would only incriminate the president. make it the last question. >> could you explain how the question process will work? meaning i know it's going to be written. is it unlimited questions? does every senator just get one? who decides how to do it? because it seems these questions could bring up, on both sides, a sense of rebuttal that neither side has. >> yeah. i think that's exactly how the process will work and did work the last time it was used, and that is there'll be 16 hours set aside for questioning. if we follow the practice that has been used in the past, it will alternate questions by democratic senators and then questions by republican senators. they will go to one side or the other, the president's team or the house managers, but not both.

the same day, blair told him to pull of the eight and michael duffey, a political and omb reports. e-mailed and told her that the president had questions about the aide. duffy copied mark sandy, a career official and omb told us about the e-mail and his testimony before the house. like all others, that e-mail was not produced by the trump administration and the house impeachment investigation. we know this e-mail exists however. because in response to a freedom of information act, the trump administration was forced to release the redacted e-mail. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has opportunity to obtain and review the full record to further demonstrate how and why the president was holding made. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3rd, the state department told various officials that i would be blocked it from dispensing $141,000,000.8. omb had directed the state department not to send the notification to congress about spending the money. and without the notif

even in the face of these concerns on august 30, michael duffey, the top o mshs b mb off emails and says, continue to hold. so even though there are all these concerns, it's coming from the top. the president does not want to lift the hold on this money. some of the back and forth before that really shows the divide between what was going on at the office of management and budget and what was going on at the pentagon. pentagon's officials really did not feel they were taking this seriously, about their ability to get the money out the door before the end of the fiscal year when it wouldn't have expired. in one of these emails, the comptroller of the defense department was writing the chief of staff and saying, recognizing the importance of decision space, but this situation is really unworkable made particularly difficult because omb lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process. and the information we have provided. they keep repeating that this pause will not impact dod's ability to execute on time. and that's their concern, they don't believe omb is being honest, and th

. >> you're talking about michael duffey, or at least his name is somewhere in those emails and knows things about u.s. military aid withheld from ukraine. so how does the white house continue to maintain that hearing directly from potential witnesses or seeing documentation isn't obstruction of congress? >> it is, fredricka, and they can't and they shouldn't. this is what is so damn crazy about the times we're living in right now. throw the clinton model out the window, throw all past and prior models out the window. this is donald trump we're talking about. and donald trump has not allowed anybody to testify. donald trump has blocked all documents from being seen by congress. we've never, ever been in this situation before where the president of the united states has given his middle finger to another branch and not allowed them at all to do their job. and i think because of that, i think democrats and a few brave republicans have to stand firm and demand that we see this. because, fredricka, it's almost like with trump, it's going on right before our eyes right now. the obstruction

john bolton, mick mulvaney and his top aide robert blair and top white house budget official michael duffey, all to testify. republicans have not yet to commit to any of that, even the republicans who have signaled an openness to have witnesses have not gone as far as democrats have. so ultimately the question will come down on the floor when they vote, probably after the arguments are done, whether republicans will break ranks, join with democrats to call any of the witness oz or get a deal to bring some of the republican -- the white house witnesses as well, so a lot of unpredictability here as we head into this momentous trial in the days ahead. >> seems all the formalities that were very expected have now taken place and now the unpredictability begins. thank you. appreciate it. >>> speaking of witnesses, one person who wants to be a witness in the senate trial is lev parnas. he's the associate of rudy giuliani, indicted on campaign finance violations, he's got a lot to say. in an interview with anderson cooper, parnas says the president tried to fire former u.s. ambassador to ukraine y

do you get a sense, manu, any of the new information coming out, like the emails from michael duffey, online publication just security was able to see when he writes clear direction from potus to continue to hold in terms of the aid, is any of this changing any minds? >> reporter: it doesn't appear that way. what the most republicans, almost all of them seem to be in line with mcconnell's strategy, to go forward with opening arguments first and senate trial, then deal with what the democrats are asking for later, which is to ask for documents and witnesses to be turned over. the democrats want that agreed to up front, that's something mitch mcconnell won't agree to. and we're not seeing any defections really in the ranks joining the democrats argument on this. even people critical of mcconnell's coordination with the white house, collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, giving mitch mcconnell leverage because he does not have -- they're not four republicans who say they're going to break ranks and join with democrats, so we'll see it that changes. for the moment, mcconnell has his

redacted emails released over the last few weeks including one we hadn't seen which came from michael duffeyomb and he wrote this to someone at the pentagon. at the end of august. >> august 30th, the same day as that meeting around the resolute desk. >> in this email, it definitively says that the decision for the hold on ukraine funding came at the clear direction from potus. clear direction from potus. after the meeting with the president took place, duffey told mccusker, clear direction from potus to hold that money. so where does that fit? what are the implications of that? >> well, this helps to fill in the gaps in the sort of narrative about how was this decision made, why was it made, and was it made with the administration thinking no problem, this is absolutely the right thing to do or with an understanding as we are now learning that there were a lot of concerns inside the administration about whether this was legal. the fact that this really underscores the president's direct involvement i think helps us to understand two things. it helps us to understand why democrats have been p

bolton, like mick mulvaney, people the democrats have demanded including a senior budget official, michael duffey, involved in some of those discussions of withholding of military aid to ukraine. those matters -- specifics have not been sorted out yet. even susan collins of maine suggested she's open to witnesses has not specified how she would vote when it would come time to issuing a subpoena in order to subpoena these witnesses. they would need 51 votes in the senate. that means four republicans would have to break ranks, vote with democrats in order to do that. it is uncertain how that would come down, if republicans would push for hunter biden to come and exchange for getting witnesses like a john bolton. those are negotiations that will happen through the course of this trial. that will not happen until after those opening arguments take place. and we can expect opening arguments on each side to happen probably over a two-week time frame. a lot needs to happen before we get to that, but a lot of discussions happening behind the scenes of about whether in fact they do bring in witnesses and

just 90 minutes after that july 25 call, blair's contact at omb, michael duffey, sent officials at the department of defense an email to make sure that dod continued to freeze the military aid that ukraine so desperately needed. this email, like all others, was not produced to the house. however, it was produced pursuant to court order in a freedom of information act lawsuit. as the email reflects, duffey told the dod officials that based on the guidance he had received, they should, quote, hold off any additional dod obligations of these funds. duffey added that the request was sensitive and that they should keep this information closely held. this email too raises questions that duffey should answer. what exactly was the guidance duffey received? who gave it to him? was it connected to president trump's phone call? and why was it so sensitive that he directed dod to keep it closely held? the senate should demand the answers to these questions. the senate should also hear from duffey as to why he abruptly removed a career omb official who questioned the freeze on military aid to ukrai

quoting from just security's reporting on exchange michael duffey and the acting pentagon comptroller, after the meeting when the meeting took place, clear from potus to hold, meaning there was clear direction from president of the united states to hold the aid. more now on the story and the white house reaction from cnn kaitlan collins who joins us now. so, has the president or white house had response so far to the unredacted emails? >> no, they haven't said much. with e know in the past the white house argued that as far as it comes to the redactions they feel they've got a lot of leeway here. you're hearing criticism from democrats about the trump administration redacting this amid the over site with the impeachment inquiry. you can really see just how dead set the president was on withholding this aid and it only backs up the testimony we heard from multiple fushls and from our own reporting about how there were official who is went to the president trying to get him to release aid saying it wasn't in the country's interest to withhold it. you can see from the simple email from t

in one email, top office of management and budget official michael duffey rights -- writes that there was "clear direction from potus to continue to hold," in reference to the nearly $400 million of withheld military aid to ukraine. potus is president of the united states. the house has impeached president trump for abuse of power and obstruction of congress over the withheld aid. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is slated to address impeachment on the senate floor today as the senate returns. the democratic-controlled house and the republican-controlled senate are in an unprecedented standoff over president trump's impeachment. house majority leader nancy pelosi has refused to send the articles of impeachment to the senate in efforts to pressure senator mcconnell to preside -- conduct a fair trial. secretary of state mike pompeo had been slated to meet with the ukrainian president today in kiev, but has postponed his trip to ukraine amid the mounting tensioions between the u.s. anad iran. in election news, julian castro has dropped out of the presidential race. he was the only

are going to be a democratic witnesses, and there should be, john bolton and mick mulvaney and michael duffey that means they should negotiate this. i would want to try to bring closure to this witness debate because there needs to be some. >> before we gee, jackie, shan, charlie, thumbs up or thumbs down, senate votes to call witnesses? >> putting them on the spot here. >> oh, man, jim. >> he asked. not me. >> you know, you're the swing vote, jackie. >> i'm inclined to agree. two senators, but those are two hard votes to get. >> so thumbs up. >> no, i don't think they will. >> thumbs down. >> you don't think they will. >> i don't think they will. >> she didn't put it on the screen. >> she's a smart woman. >> right. >> jackie, charlie, shan, thanks to all of you. >> we appreciate it. thank you for joining us. see you back here tomorrow morning. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm jim sciutto. stay tuned here. special coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump begins right now. >>> i'm wolf blitzer live in washington alongside jake tapper, anderson cooper and dana bash on capitol hill. this is

one notable email was sent by michael duffey, who works for the office of management and budget to theing pentagon comptroller saying this, quote, clear direction from potus to continue to hold. that hold seemingly referring to the aid to ukraine. kate brannen also reports, quote, what is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted. no one else appears to have supported his position. we should note that nbc news has not viewed the emails and cannot verify their authenticity. nbc news has asked to be shown the documents, but the reporter has declined. here with us, john harris, founding editor of politico and victoria francesca desoto. thank you to both you have for being with us. john, i'll start with you. you are somebody who covered every sort of twist and turn of the bill clinton presidency. i mention that because there have been a number of key plot points in this impeachment that have matched up on the timeline with bill clinton's, the house vote to impeach bill clinton is almost the exact same day to vote to impeach donald trump. here is another parallel to

as a senior office of management and budget official michael duffey instructed defense department officialsn july 25th. 90 minutes after president trump spoke by phone with president zelensky the defense department should pause all obligation of ukraine military assistance under its purview. 90 minutes after that call. duffy added, quote, given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate you're keeping that information closely held. to those who need to know, to execute the direction. although the evidence is already more than sufficient to convict, there is simply no rational basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment. >> joining us here on msnbc analyst danny cevallos and also from washington nils lessnewsky. you had a public rebuke of his resolution. and chuck schumer come out along with his senate colleagues as well with the public rebuke of this resolution. and then there was a change midday, once the proceedings started at 1:00 p.m. of his resolution, over two days, 24 hours over those three days. and allowan

making a reasonable argument demanding that certain witnesses like mulvaney, like blair, like michael duffeyorward. i think those are reasonable requests. i think it will be very hard for republicans to resist the witness request. the question will be four votes. i suspect there will be. >> there was new polling out from cnn which showed that 69% of americans feel there should be witnesses. we have a plurality of republicans that think there should be witnesses. do you feel that that might be weighing or how do you feel that that might be weighing on some of these senators as they listen to these arguments? >> listen, i don't think this outweighs on the opinion. i think they look to their home states. here in wisconsin by a 12 point margin, wisconsinites don't favor impeachment. 40% support it. i think they look back to their home states as to how they're directed in the impeachment proceedings. with regard to witnesses, i do think adam schiff controlled the whole house and the whole impeachment narrative as he went through the investigation. he did have a choice to call these witnesses, to

the air there was a proposal by chuck schumer on another subpoena to subpoena robert blair and michael duffeyso we will have two hours of debate. i'm trying to decipher what they might do because the hour is getting late, people are getting cranky and there might be an effort to wrap this up. last hour they finished a vote and chuck schumer told the senate majority leader it might be a while, we have a number of amendments to go through it looks like they are going to start on the next proposal. you would have to get unanimous consent meaning all 100 senators agree on how they are going to proceed and as long as chuck schumer doesn't back down that means you are locked in and he can continue to offer these amendments and you keep toggling back and forth in these debates and right now sylvia garcia, democrat from texas, a freshman, one of the 7 impeachment managers is now talking about this issue subpoenas for robert blair and michael duffy which means we will be locked back in here for at least an hour and a half at the minimum. it seems democrats, house prosecutors have been taking their ent

vought, michael duffey, brian mccormack, and t. ulrich brechbuhl. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its "sole power of impeachment." in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate "high crimes and misdemeanors." this abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. in all of th

this pentagon budget official, senior pentagon budget official kept pushing back against omb and michael duffey said you can't hold this much longer. the pentagon won't be able to spend this money by the deadline if you keep holding it. and duffey kept excluding that information from the footnotes he sent over to congress. and then, according to these e-mails in just security, and then when it -- when it was clear the pentagon wouldn't be able to spend the money in time, he tried to blame it on the pentagon. saying this is your problem that you can't spend this in time. and she responds, the pentagon official, by saying you can't be serious. after all the e-mails she sent to him and all of that -- that -- that pushback that she sent saying this is not going to go out on time was redacted. >> yeah. >> so i mean, what does this mean for a senate trial and calling witnesses? >> couple things. i think possibly, you might have given nancy pelosi a bit of an escape hatch, right? they're at a stalemate certainly. she doesn't have leverage with mitch mcconnell. so does she then use this for possibly re