door shut and show it is participating in a cover-up cracks and to hear testimony from the national security council before the national security advisor because they fear what he might say in fear he knows too much. why is president trump so intent on preventing us from hearing ambassador bolton's with his trusted confidant? because he knows. he knows that he doesn't want people to know to testify but the question is whether republican senators here today who participate in that cover-u cover-up. the reasons seem clear president trump was to block the witness because of the direct knowledge of the ukraine scheme which he calls a drug deal. that key meeting on july 10th 2 weeks before president trump's now famous july 25th call with president zelensky, ambassador bolton hosted ukrainian officials in the office that included doctor hill, lieutenant colonel vindman ambassador sondland and secretary rick perry as they did in every meeting ukrainian officials asked when president trump would schedule a white house meeting. because it was very important the ukrainian president of the embattled democracy

throughout the rest of july, over the course of several interagency meetings, national security council repeatedly discussed the freeze on the ukraine assistance. as national security advisor, ambassador bolton supervised that process. these meetings worked their way up to the level of cabinet deputies, and every agency involved except for the office of management and budget supported release of the aid. omb said the decision was based on president trump's express orders, we know a number of individuals at omb and the department of advance raised concerns about the legality of freezing the funds, which we know is illegal. now we have explicit rulings from the government accountability office -- which we didn't need, which we knew it -- that the freeze by president trump was illegal and he was told this and violated the impoundment control act. we also know after the meeting of cabinet deputies on july 26th, tim morrison talked through ambassador bolton and according to mr. morrison, ambassador bolton said the entire cabinet supported releasing the freeze and wanted to get the issue to p

two different occasions to report what he had heard to the national security council's lawyers. it's sounding so suspicious. on september 1st, ambassador bolton directed mr. morrison to report to the national security council's lawyers an explicit proposal from ambassador sondland to a senior ukrainian official that, quote, what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mic and announce that he was opening the burisma investigation, closed quote. on september 7th, ambassador bolton instructed mr. morrison to report to the lawyers another conversation mr. morrison had with ambassador sondland. this time ambassador sondland had conveyed the administration would not release the military aid unless president zelensky announced the investigations demanded by president trump. the investigations of one company because the president was so concerned about the corruption in ukraine. one company that had had vice president biden's son on the board, and the president just happened to pick that company from hundreds of thousands to be concerned about corrupti

maybe three, maybe four dozen people total on the national security council. a put hundreds from all this, don't forget, you also have people that were on the national security staff that went over to adam schiff's staff, that knew the whistleblower. vindman, the guy, you know, he served his country, that's great. he wants to be called lieutenant colonel, that's fine. his brother is also there as a lawyer. so all of these people colluded and coordinated with the whistleblower. they coordinated with adam schiff's staff, so, you know, really what you had there a den of thieves there at the national security council and look, i have said this over and over and over again. i said this to mcmaster, i said it to bolton and i said it to the new national security advisor o'brien that they just need to get all those people out of there. like, if you were there and worked for obama and you were a holdover, just, you know, get a used building somewhere on the other side of the potomac. just get them out of there. they have done so much damage to the presidency i couldn't

probably be and again i i i disagree on this question of the state council versus the security council the national security council i think that the national security council because it includes the minister of defense all of this a low viki the law enforcement people the security people foreign policy that this is putin's main concern and this is this is where the power i think will be focused and i would say that maybe the security council is more like the old soviet politburo but i'd just like to add something about the whole 2024 question you know when putin was announcing these changes he talked about the article in the constitutional provision that limits. the presidency to a candidate for becoming president for more than 2 earth serving as president for more than 2 consecutive terms but he also said kind of interestingly that he didn't think this issue was fundamental i think that it's entirely possible that when they make these changes in the constitution and they have a referendum on these changes it is possible that some legal experts would say that the old that the old constitution ther

it's not national security council adviser that makes the decisions. i have sat in the national security council meetings before and at the end of the day the information is put out, the options are put out. but at the end of the day it's the president that makes the decision. it is not a consensus. it's the president's decision and that's why it's the loneliest man in america because he ultimately has to make that decision. i don't think there's any question about the legality of what he did, whether it was self defense, whether it was under the aumf or the commander in chief and responsible for protecting all americans and the homeland. >> there's some question, right? if there wasn't a threat to americans and the homeland then it might have been illegal. he doesn't have the right to assassinate people as he chooses. >> president obama did that against an american citizen in libya. >> very controversial at the time you will recall. >> i agree. the controversy is necessary in the summit. the dissent is necessary at this time but the end of the day i th

pressure campaign now president trumpet had been provided talking points for discussion by the national security council staff beforehand including recommendations to encourage president selenski to continue to promote anti corruption reforms in ukraine so the national security staff understood what was in the u.s. national security interests and that was rooting out corruption and they encouraged the president to talk about it but as you see from the record of the call and i join the president saying read the call that topic was never addressed the word corruption never escaped his lips instead present trump openly press president selenski to pursue the 2 investigations that would benefit him personally in response to president's alinsky gratitude for the significant military support the united states has provided to ukraine president trump said. i would like you to do with a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine they say crowd strike i guess you have one of your wealthy

to become leaderfor national security council to become leader for life national security counciltional security council to become leader for life in that country in as extant. there are several similar models to look forward to in that example. putin has strong support in the country but there are problems out there. what do you make of the public‘s this. for the referendum be worth the paper people are making their mark on? well, whether it is worth the paper or not, i think you are likely to see significant russian support. this will be viewed as a move towards stability, heading off what could have been quite a destabilising succession process and so destabilising succession process and so providing clarity at this early date was not i think putin certainly hopes to ensure that they're not the kinds of protest that we saw in 2011 and 2012 when he announced fairly last—minute that he would run for president. and so i think the idea is to provide a smooth path to whatever comes next. molly montgomery, thank you so much. the past decade was officially the warmest on record. figur

presidency would be about. >> so there are other ways of doing business. >> so those in the national security council so basically ask a set of questions so in afghanistan these are not unreasonable questions so although there is a lot of consensus with republicans and democrats on the national security side so the fact he does that is not bad but then to do things that i say in the book trump is trying to conflate the endless wars so for instance in afghanistan right now another interesting point you could imagine that policy where we keep relative special forces in those numbers with the casualties in the amount of money is not that much nobody wants to buy life insurance but that is the context. so it is under this experiment. and then the chaos that ensues. so in 1989 to defeat the soviets and say goodbye then al qaeda came but that doesn't mean the war is over. and then it was founded as the anti- empire and then the languages over six months and then the attention span is limited so it's hard for us to have a consistent policy but there is a common sense approach the democrat or republican pres

the national security council of iran has just finished its meetings. myth logically, always spoken of by name by the americans, weirdly, qasem soleimani became sort of a mythical figurine sort of the way the united states was talking about him. they have to avenge his death. we will wait to see what that looks like. but you and i know, as we've been in that region many times, that the iranians and particularly the force that he led have their tentacles and their very powerful networks all over the region. and the united states and u.s. allies have their troops and interests and bases also spread over that exact region. so this is, you know, a collision that we'll wait to see what the impact of it might be. >> what do you make of secretary of state pompeo saying on cnn just a little while ago this morning that this was all about saving american lives, the u.s. decision to send those drones into the baghdad international airport and kill soleimani? >> well, look, cnn is coming out with its own reporting on this. you've been talking about jim sciutto, dan

we are the national security council. we cannot be involved in this. here's her testimony. >> so when i came in ambassador sondland was basically saying we have to deal here that there will be meeting. i have a deal here with chief of staff mulvaney if the ukrainians open a pronounced these investigations in 22016 and burisma. by this point having heard mr. giuliani over and over again on television and all the issues that he was asserting by this point it was clear that burisma was coaxed and giuliani was laying out their predicate see why colonel vindman was alarmed and he said this is the national security council we can't be involved in this. >> and what's more ambassador sondland told us everyone was in the loop. meaning it became clear that president trump was directing this and dr. hill who at one point confronted gordon sondland over this arrangement further reached the conclusion that he was acting on the president's orders and coordinating with other senior officials. he had made this clear that he was briefing the president on all of this cr

we're the national security council, we can't be involved in this. >> the referenced agreement between ambassador sondland and mick mulvaney was so upsetting that dr. hill reported it to national security council legal advisors. here is the testimony of dr. hill explaining these particular concerns. >> he was making a very strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said. when i came back and related it to him, he had some very specific instruction for me. i'm presuming that's -- >> what was that specific instruction? >> the specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers, to john eisenberg to basically say you tell eisenberg, ambassador bolton told me, that i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> sondland's testimony not only corroborates dr. hill's account, he actually says that mick mulvaney, the subject of this am

now, president trump had been provided talking points for discussion by the national security council staff beforehand. including recommendations to ze continue to promote national security staff understood what was in the u.s. national security and that was routing out corruption and they encouraged the president to talk about it, as you see from the record of the call, and i join the president saying read the call. that topic was never addressed. the word corruption never escapes his list. instead, president trump openly pressed president zelensky to pursue the two investigation that's would benefit him personally. in response to president zelensky's gratitude for the significant military support, the united states has provided to ukraine, president trump said i would like you to do as you favor. our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out at crowd strike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they say ukraine has it. that's that crazy conspiracy theory i talked about earlier. that there's this server somewhere

when we came into the white house, we inherited 420 obama holdovers in the national security council.ade my recommendations to slash and burn as many as possible. eisenhower, pete, eisenhower had 25 people on his national security council. don't tell me the world was less complicated under eisenhower. this is great news, but o'brien needs to slash and burn many many more people out of the nsc. pete: what was the reason for the consolidation of so much power at the national security council? was this because the obama white house wants to overturn the way pentagon did business or other people -- why did that happen? why is it cutting it so important? >> well, look, why it happened, the majority of these detailees because they come from other agencies were the state department. the state department wanted to control foreign policy instead of actually the white house and the president being the strategic, you know, avenue for how we proceed in foreign affairs. they wanted to replicate all of government inside the eeob, the eisenhower executive office building which is exactly the opposit

well he said that iran has written to the united nations security council and the secretary general of voicing their condemnation that's what has happened the assassination of general costs and so the money also summoned the swiss charles the affairs now the united states does have a presence here so the swiss act as a go between that they've been summoned 3 times in 3 days 1st over the assassination 2nd over the response to iran and response to donald trump and now again responding to donald trump's treat saying that 52 locations.

national security adviser john bolton. senior white house aide blair, omb official and national security council layer john eisenberg. they are forced to testify before the house is part of the impeachment inquiry. that president trump was determined to hide from the american people what they had to say. the president directed the entire executive branch of all the top aides and advisers to defy all request with their testimony. that cannot be allowed to stand. mister mulvaney is a highly relevant witness in this trial and was at the center of every stage of the substantial pressure campaign against ukraine. based on extensive evidence it is clear to crucial to implement the implementation to carry out the cover-up e-mail and witness testimony show that nick mulvaney was in on the president's decision to condition a white house meeting of the investigations to the president's reelection prospect. and also involved to implement and subsequently that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on ukraine to conduct a phony political investigation that the president wanted. phony political investigation. the trial wou

door shut and show it is participating in a cover-up cracks and to hear testimony from the national security council before the national security advisor because they fear what he might say in fear he knows too much. why is president trump so intent on preventing us from hearing ambassador bolton's with his trusted confidant? because he knows. he knows that he doesn't want people to know to testify but the question is whether republican senators here today who participate in that cover-u cover-up. the reasons seem clear president trump was to block the witness because of the direct knowledge of the ukraine scheme which he calls a drug deal. that key meeting on july 10th 2 weeks before president trump's now famous july 25th call with president zelensky, ambassador bolton hosted ukrainian officials in the office that included doctor hill, lieutenant colonel vindman ambassador sondland and secretary rick perry as they did in every meeting ukrainian officials asked when president trump would schedule a white house meeting. because it was very important the ukrainian president of the embattled democracy

then they go to the united nations security council the security council then has another 30 day period to investigate these issues if the security council does decide that there's no way to resolve these differences they will take side they will. have a vote in the security council on the way and decide whether or not to stop snapback those security council sanctions on iran that were lifted since the signing of this deal in 2015 remind us dorsey of the commitments that iran had made and some of these commitments they have scaled back on since this deal was done. well the main thing that iran agreed to under this deal was to slow down its. nuclear activities its nuclear program to limit certain parts of their nuclear program in the country and also have more transparency with the international community and the international atomic energy organization for inspectors to come and go without any advance notice to open up all the nuclear facilities to inspections under the agreement and also to limit certain reactors the main one being the for don't you clear facility near a form this was

as he is seen in testimony shown during this trial, following that meeting, national security council officials, doctor fiona hill and lieutenant colonel alexander penman immediately reported this information to john eisenberg. the legal advisor for the national security council and a deputy counsel to the president. according to doctor hill, mr. eisenberg told her that he was also concerned about that july 10 meeting. on the screen is doctor hill's deposition testimony. she explains mr. eisenberg's reaction. saying, he was not aware that ambassador sondland was kind of running around doing a lot of these meetings and independently we talked about the fact that ambassador sondland said he had been meeting with giuliani and he was very concerned about that. he was going to follow up on this. mr. eisenberg was very concerned about that. he said that he would follow up on this. doctor hill further testified that mr. eisenberg told her that he followed up with his boss, the distinguish white house counsel. however, because the president locked mr. eisenberg from testifying in the house, w

he spoke this worthierr of. >> and expire printed. >> national security council in april.ughter]. so use all of the map. in syria and so on. entire around with controllers. and the king said, giving him new information, beginning in the civil arguments here. and so that was the basis. the thing about trump and the consistency, december 18th, allow men as you mentioned, few months later, they learn to say. i think this consistent inconsistency might be helpful in some aspects. that is less helpful in your conducting a of the mind sees printed one thing to do in the book is i think is true is that trump is been very lucky. be back toe npr. every president since has some major foreign policy crisis. the rise of the nazis for the return of the iron curtain. new york and this is known and quite 911, global financial crisis, two premises ball up. in over 200 people in 17 american citizens. trump doesn't have the spine crisis. the interesting question is, when he reacts. based on his past behavior, i would say what we know about him, is he totally actor predictor. kind of sub wha

national security interests. all three witnesses, tim orson, at the national security council, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman at the security council, jennifer williams who listen to the july july 25 call testified that when president trump demanded that president zelensky investigate the bidens, he had completely departed from the talking points that they had prepared for him. before i get to the video clip i justis want to underscore this. he's not obligated to use his talking points. he's not obligated to follow the recommendations of the staff no matter how sound they may be. but what this makes clear is, it wasn't u.s. policy that he was conducting. it was his private personal interest that he was conducting. it was u.s. policy it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing materials but, of course, it was not. let's look at mr. moran since testimony. >> were these references to crowdstrike, the server in 2016 election, and to vice president biden and his son, with the included in the president's talking point? >> they were not. >> and here's lieutenant colonel vindman on this point. >>

and politically damage the president the call summary was placed on a highly classified national security councilerver. it was put on the server reserved for america's most sensitive national security secrets and covert operations not routine calls with foreign leaders. apparently mister eisenberg calls putting that there was a mistake now in a second meeting with mister eisenberg , what did you recommend he do to prevent the call record from leaking quick. >> i recommend we restrict access to the package. >> did you ask the nsc advisor to restrict access before quick. >> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor before you went to speak to him quick. >> no. >> did you subsequently learn the call record was put into a highly classified system? >> i did. >> what reason did mister eisenberg give you why it was put into a highly classified system? >> it was a mistake. it was an administrative error. >> and in mister morrison's view the call did not meet the requirements to be placed on the highly classified server. add a deposition it was said it was placed by mistake but even after this alleged mista

politically damage the president, that the call summary had been placed on a highly classified national security council a server that is reserved for america's most sensitive national security secrets and covert operations. not routine calls with foreign leaders. apparently mr. eisenberg claimed at the time that burying the call on a highly classified server emma was a mistake. now, in a second meeting with mr. eisenberg, what did you recommend that he do to prevent the call record from leaking? >> i recommended we restrict access to the package. >> have you ever asked the nsc legal advisor to restrict access before? >> no. >> did you speak to your supervisor before you went to speak to john eisenberg? >> no. >> did you subsequently learned of the call record had been put in a highly classified system? >> i did. >> 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 a mistake? >> it was an administrative error. >> mr. morrison's view, they july 25th call record did not -- >> hakeem jeffries making the case they a

chords are that's close to the border with mali defense minister has called a meeting if it's national security council no one has claimed responsibility and last month another attack killed $71.00 soldiers near new border with mali so that prompted leaders of the regional g 5 nations to call for closer cooperation and international support french president i knew in my call is expected to host leaders in the region on monday to decide on the future of france's military presence in the south there has been a surge in violence right across the region and the number of people killed in attacks and. jumped from 770 that was in 2016 to more than 4000 last year it's largely because of a combination of attacks by armed groups and intercommunal violence remote areas where the state's presence is weak especially vulnerable the humanitarian cost is also growing the u.n. estimates half a 1000000 people have been displaced a 10 fold increase in 3 years. as more from. no one has claimed responsibility for the attack in yet but it's suspected that it was carried out by miller and or other fighters who crossed over

our phone to be able to support future industry this is a huge critical infrastructure the national security council will be discussing huawei, the chinese giant's future roll. some of these accusations from the u.s. that huawei is a national security risk and could be used for these purposes huawei has continuously denied these allegations. one, they can block huawei outright or secondly let them into the network in a partial way as part of a noncore part of the 5g network and perhaps limit their market share as well that is seen as a half way help. you have the u.s. pushing the uk to completely block out huawei the other side, you've got the chinese wanting huawei in the network. not only with the political relationship with the u.s. and trading relationship the chinese have threatened germany with consequences if they completely block them out another thing is to consider the 5g rollout, whether that will be slowed or the impact to these carries already rolling out with some limited equipment can you see some of the ministers turning up now for this national security council britain is placed bet

this letter that was sent from the national security council office, to john bolton's attorney suggesting that the manuscript that was submitted to them on december 30th appears to contain significant amounts of classified information. it also appears that some of this classified information is at the top secret level according to this letter which means that the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of the classified information. the letter goes on to say that the national security council is willing to work to john bolton into getting it into a form in which it can be released. what is most interesting is that this letter is dated january th. that is when john bolton was informed that his manuscript according to the nsc had classified her top secret information in it. three days later, portions of that manuscript we relate to "the new york times" which has now blown all of the stuff about john bolton appearing before the senate into the open. the president maybe actually adding a little fuel to the fire when it comes to the idea of calling bolton by

officials reported concerns to national security council lawyers, including, but not limited to, national security council legal advisor john eisenberg regarding matters related to ukraine including but not limited to one, the decision to delay military assistance to ukraine, two, that july 10, 2019, meeting at the white house with ukrainian officials, three, the president's july 25th, 2019 call with the president of ukraine. four, september 1st, 2019, meeting between ambassador sondland and a ukrainian official, and five, the president september 7, 2019, call with ambassador sondland. g, any internal review or internal assessment within the white house regarding ukraine matters following the september 9, 2019, request for documents from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the house committee on oversight and reform, and house committee on foreign affairs. including, but not limited to, documents collected that for pertain to the hold on military and other security assistance to ukraine, the scheduling of a white house meaning for the president of ukraine, and any reques

iran's national security council tonight issuing new threats, saying, a very grave revenge is awaiting the criminals who bloodied their hands with the blood of soleimani months ago we traveled inside iran, speaking to people on the street and in their homes, and to government officials, including the head of iran's national security council, a visit during another moment of inflamed tensions following suspected iranian attacks on oil tankers and iran's shootdown of an american military drone back then he shared with me this warning >> translator: in the case of war, the u.s. will be in a very terrible situation. >> reporter: will iran use asymmetric warfare? >> translator: iran has multiple instruments at hand, including the proxy war. >> reporter: a reference to iranian backed groups from militias across the region to terror organizations like hamas and hezbollah, potentially raising the stakes for american military planners. >> military to military, how would you expect the iranians would fare against the u.s. >> they would fare badly. they cannot match us in conventional forces, but

perhaps as head of national security council or head of national security council or head of the statetlined today are not completely unexpected. what has surprised everyone is the resignation of the government. but again, that is most likely part of a wider kremlin plan, to which we are not privy. in short, this was, i think, a significant day in moscow because it feels as if big pieces of an important jigsaw puzzle because it feels as if big pieces of an importantjigsaw puzzle had been put in place and although we do not know what the final picture will look like, i think the chances are vladimir putin will be part of it. thank you. in australia, rafa nadal, roger federer, serena williams and novak djokovic have all been playing a charity match in melbourne in the lead—up to the australian open. they played against a group of firefighters to raise more money for those affected by the bushfires, as australia experiences one of its worst wildfire seasons on record. 0ur sports correspondent andy swiss reports. announcer: the one, the only, the immortal, serena williams. cheering and app

there will be revenge into her own senior leaders met in an emergency meeting of iran's national security council many iranians see the u.s. attack as an act of war the united nations high commissioner for human rights described the killings as a likely violation of international law the idea that iran is not going to respond is is wishful thinking that will make the debacle of invading iraq look like a walk in the park i do not think the president trying really understands what he's got in the united states into going up against iran u.s. secretary of state michael and peo tweeted a video showing iraqis celebrating the attack while still the money enjoyed widespread support for leading the charge to displace eisold from iraqi strongholds some iraqis blame iran for instability and interference in their country and so the money directly for the deaths of more than $500.00 iraqis in violent antigovernment protests which began in october feared by his enemies inside iran so the money has for years been one of the most popular national figures in the country the international face of iranian resistan

national security foreign policy and those two things have justcu diverged. >> and there's more. much more. president trump's national security adviser at the time, john bolton, told dr. fiona hill to tell the national security council's lawyers that he was not part of what ever drug deal somnolent and -- somnolent and mulvaney were cooking up turkey made that statement after ambassador sondland specifically said that he had a deal with mr. mulvaney to schedule a white house visit for president zelensky if ukraine announced two phony investigations involvingg the bidens and 2016 election interference, investigations that were sought by president donald john trump. hereen is dr. hale's testimony about sondland describing this drug deal he had with mulvaney. >> so when i came in, gordon sondland was basically say look, we have deal here that there would be a a meeting, i have dl here with chief of staff mulvaney. there will be a meeting if the ukrainians open up or announce the investigations into 2016 and burisma. i cut it off immediately there because by this point having heard mr. giuliani over and over again on television and all of the issues heer was asserting, y this point it was clear that burisma was code for t

shannon shannon: late tonight former national security adviser john bolton's lawyer speaking out following the revelation that on the 20 third the national security councilified bolton's attorney that his book manuscript contained top-secret information and can't be published or publicly disclosed in current form. a sessions warns the book sets a dangerous precedent. is live in a minute the first julian turner, let's talk about this letter that went to the bolton team, is it standard issue or an outright threat to the white house? >> what i know based on working on staff a few years ago plus talking to sources now who are familiar with the classification review process the letter informing them that some parts of the book are classified is very standard stuff, looks like all the other letters they sent to all authors when the determiners information they are trying to publish that is classified. is the important part of the letter to bolton, it is his manuscript, quote, appears to contain significant amounts of classified information, some classified at the top-secret double, they go on to say the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed wi

the other option would be someone and the national security council and related 20 just talked about, this president does have a lot of people who seek to undermine him. in their people currently working in the national security council who were people who reportedly reviewed the book who is known as critics of president trump. i guess that's the case being made by the publicist and the book publisher, they are suggesting at some national security council. it's possible, and this did happen to coincide with the launch of presales for the book. which is just a wonderful coincidence. kennedy: excellent timing. it is absolutely perfect given the political climate that we are in. and apparently, this has done some jostling with a moderate republican senators like susan collins and met romney. and just hearing the slow snippets, this little width of the literary opium, they now want to hear more from bolton. to think that's can happen? >> i'm not sure if it will happen. i don't know if they've thought through what it means to call more witnesses. you've never before had an impeachment wher

a month later president trump's national security adviser at the time, john bolton, told dr. fiona hill to tell the national security council's lawyers that he not part of whatever drug deal. >> he made that statement after ambassador sondland specifically said ukraine announced two phony investigations involving the bidens and 2016 election interference, investigations that were saw the by president donald john trump. >> here is drflt. >> i'm sorry, when i came in, gordon sundland was basically saying we have deal here that we will be a meeting i cut it off immediately there. by this time point herd that he was asserting. by this point it was clearly ghouliany was living it out there, i could see why colonel vindman was alarmed. he said this is appropriate. we can't be involved in this. >> the. >> to maush adviser, leave s bu he was making a stre strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said and when i came back and related to him, he had some very strong instruction for me. >> what was that specific instruction? >> was there to that i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sond land are cookin

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

our people and our interests wherever they are around the world now the iranian supreme national security council has confirmed in a statement that it held an urgent meeting and it made necessary decisions in that meeting the council valid that at the right time and place it will engage in actions that will do to the united states a basically make clear that this was the biggest strategic mistake for the usa in the west asia region basically the uniform and pretty clear message unanimous message from the iranians seems to be that there will be consequences and retaliation for this move by the united states. the u.s. an act of international terrorism targeting and assassinating general saloon money the most effective force fighting done. at oh he's extremely dangerous and foolish escalation the u.s. busy responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism. now at the moment there is no response from iran as yet being reported no missiles have been fired no strikes have been carried out and there seems to be an understanding that war with the united states is something that iran is trying

matthew bryza, a former us diplomat and former director of europe and eurasia at the us national security councilran again. this is the scene at friday prayers in tehran's main mosque. you can hear the imam giving a sermon mosque. you can hear the imam giving a sermon to the congregation. earlier, there were pictures showing grown men crying. there are three days of mourning now that have been announced by iran's supreme leader to mum the passing of general soleimani, who of course is a hugely significant figure in iran. many say he is second only to the supreme leader and was perhaps a future supreme leader and was perhaps a future supreme leader himself, had he lived. we have had lots of reaction on twitter and beyond. we have had a reaction from the democratic presidential candidate elizabeth warren in the last few hours. she says soleimani was a murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands including hundreds of americans, but this reckless move escalate the situation with iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new middle east conflict. 0ur priority must be to avoid another c

'd now iran's national security council held its meeting and said that at the emergency meeting that was convened they made quote the necessary decisions and that there is going to be some retaliation at the right time in place for what they say was the u.s. is biggest strategic mistake in the west asia region now the iranian side is basically completely unified in saying there will be a retaliatory move from the islamic republic for this killing now how the islamic republic will respond is not yet clear now it is important to note that the u.s. state department and u.s. media seem to be echoing very loudly that qassam solomonic is somehow responsible for the death of thousands of americans and that he is somehow a very bad guy they echo these allegations though there have been strong criticisms of of donald trump from the democratic side the risk of a much longer military engagement in the middle east as acute and immediately. this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endless war exactly the kind of endless war the president promised he would not drag us into no

we're the national security council. we cannot be involved in this. here's her testimony. >> and so when i came in, gordon sondland was basically saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. i have a deal here with chief of staff mulvaney there will be a meeting if the ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and burisma. and i cut it off immediately there, because by this point, having heard mr. giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues that he was asserting, by this point it was clear that burisma was code for the bidens, because giuliani was laying it out there. i could see why colonel vindman was alarmed, and he said "this is inappropriate. we're the national security council. we can't be involved in." >> and what's more, as ambassador sondland told us, everyone was in the loop. meaning it became clear that president trump was directing this. and dr. hill, who at one point confronted gordon sondland over this arrangement further reached the conc

bolton's lawyer, charles cooper that released this e-mail that he sent last week to the national security council in which he asserts that nothing in bolton's book could be reasonably considered classified koorp said that the national security council never responded to that e-mail. that manuscript that reportedly has dozens of pages on trump he is dealing with ukraine has loomed over the session and there's many that want to acquit the president before more bolton revelations come out. more trial time means a greater time of more revelations and at least some republicans are not on board with that idea. they are open to witnesses, a point that have been expressed condition concern about. and they have asked questions to the president's council and house managers. tomorrow we will do it all over again. setting the stage for a friday vote on whether to allow witnesses. tonight, house manager adam schiff, made an impassioned plea to those senators. >> it's not really, at the end of the day, whether i believe john bolton or whether general kelly believes john bolton, but whether you believe john bol